Civil War post that's got nothing to do with THE civil war

In less than a month, the United States embarks upon the start of the civil war’s sesquicentennial anniversary. For the kiddies at home who missed that week of history class, that’s 150 years. Can you imagine it’s only been 150 years? Hell, I just hit 40 and while my aching joints tell me different, I still feel like that little kid playing kickball those many years ago.

The elapsed span of  timelines as it compares to historical remembrances is quite captivating. Often, we think about the Civil War and that specific period of time as such ancient times. The barbaric nature of economic means, the once defiant and opposed to tyranny country, newly reborn and constantly at odds with her own policies.  The United States was evolving, growing, and the distance of common ideals presented a simplistic approach to a resolution.  It was us and them, North and South, Blue and Gray and the list goes on, but the end result was inevitable: Civil War.

As an adjective, civil means exactly what one would think it means. We have civil affairs, civil liberties, civil duties, civilization, civilized and civil law to name a few. The very notion of civil (as an adjective) describes actions, based on peoples responsibilities, or a simple explanation of life in a civilization. 

On the other hand, however, civil can be a noun. Civil in this function refers to a respect, gracious, courtly, urbane or just plain polite and while the former requires an a described action, the latter paints a picture that is clearly one of a much more learned experience, coupled with an ability to intelligently maneuver through any situation, but has that always been the case?

Where exactly does the Civil War fit into this seemingly vanilla flavored definition of civil? Is it even possible to bring in the expectations from a noun perspective into such a brutal realization like war, or does it solely serve its purpose as an adjective? I think the great, and all powerful Axel Rose, might have summed it up when he said, in one of the Guns and Roses songs; What’s so civil about war anyway”? I’m sure he probably borrowed that from some literary reference, or a drug fueled bender, but the simple thought evokes a topic worthy of discussion, worthy of a deeper look and certainly worthy a deeper descent into the inner works of such a simple, yet complicated topic.

For the most part, civil wars seem to be a clear cut conflict between two sides. Looking back through history, we have many examples of civil war and rather than get into a lengthy discussion on historical references, I’ll let you figure them out. More than actual war, the concept of civil war brings light on a subject of us vs. them. The have’s vs. the have-not’s and the list goes on and on. You could simply insert the “cause de jour” and very easily argue that the two different sides could be at a civil war. Is the epic nature of the argument monumentally less than the actual civil war? Certainly, but does that make it any different? In some aspects, why would it? Everything in our culture and everything in our society today (dare I say, our CIVILIZATION) is as much about pitting two sides against each other as it is anything else? We have democrats and republicans, right wingers and left wingers, cops and robbers, pro-this and con-that. In some ways, doesn’t humanity crave the pitting of one against another, hell, even survivor is split into two tribes and for that matter, so is baseball (AL and NL), football (NFC and AFC) and even cowboys and indians. You name it, and there’s a way to divide it into two categories, two topics and then ultimately two choices to make. The fundamental way we operate, the fundamental make-up of our species and it’s what drives daily behavior on so many levels, it’d make you dizzy just making comparison after comparison.

This became apparent to me during my brief stint with the US Navy. I was in school to become a trident submariner, you know, the big subs with the nukes that would destroy the world. Within the small submariner community, there was always a running joke about fast attacks and tridents (fast attack subs were the little, smaller attack submarines and we were the big, large, floating hotels). It was a constant back and forth, yet whenever one of those scum sucking, surface pukes, ever opened their mouth, the battle was on and the submariners would join forces to defend submarine life vs the surface sailing life.. The difference between a submariner and a surface Navy sailor wasn’t much, but everyone always claimed they were like oil and vinegar. While those battles waged on, we’d be damned if we’d let anyone of those gun toting, jar head, Marine types talk any shit about the Navy. So, while we were divided within the Navy, when challenged by an outside force, we’d band together and defend against outside forces. Since the USMC is a branch of the Navy, whenever the argument involved a different branch of military, we’d be happy to support one of our Marine brothers over any of those suspect fly boys, or ground and pound army chumps and don’t even get my started on those damn coasties. Yet more conflict was in store, because when any civilian had the audacity to question a military member, then it was about civilian and military. The constant separation into two different entities is absolutely a common thread here and we’re what, 5 different divisions into this topic? As far apart as civilians and military personnel might be, we still have the U.S. to call home and whenever questioned, the American stood up and claimed that (insert country to battle here) was the sworn enemy and the division continued. I would imagine at some point, we’ll unite as humanity and have to put our differences aside to battle aliens from another planet, so at the largest scale possible, we’d be humans vs. non-humans, but it goes without saying that the simple division between every single aspect of our lives creates a tension that does beg the question; is a civil war exactly that; a civil war or a civil...war?

I’m not entirely convinced that the civil war was about slavery. Is it unfathomable to think that if the civil war would have never taken place, that we’d not evolved enough as a civilization to abolish slavery by now?  I have to have enough faith in my fellow man, that we would have come to our senses sooner or later and done the right thing, but it’s really a pointless conversation because that’s not what happened, but it does raise some good questions.  I know you’re probably saying by now: Hey, jackass, if it wasn’t about slavery, then what was it about? That’s a great question. I think it was about a division of ideals, unrecoverable through intelligent communication and an unwillingness to compromise. The tyranny of some, trying to impose their will on those without a voice of their own and a very obvious, repeatable pattern that humanity has lived throughout its’ existence.

We divide and conquer, we pit sides against each other and lack the ability to consistently, unequivocally remain content with seeing differences as differences. We must impose our intent on others and if resistance is met, then battle ensues. It’s not a statement about the U.S, but about humanity. We lack the ability to coexist and at some point, is going to be the demise of our entire population.

There truly is nothing civil about war, so ultimately, it’s our composition and sense experience that forces us to use civil as an adjective, simply because that’s how we are. Unfortunately it’s also going to be how we were..........remembered..

Sláinte

Kjc