Civil War Revisited

At the height of the 2008 elections and four years after that, the US was said to have been split equally between two. Even if the time has passed since the first civil war, the circumstances under which it occurred, are in my view pretty much the same. To begin with, the Americans were still fresh with thoughts from the Revolutionary wars. The distaste for colonial sentiments was still high and residue from earlier experiences was still evident in daily living. As can be expected, descendants and supporters of England were still present and active and as can be expected entrenched in the new democratic system. It was therefore natural that a certain downward flow of the great stream of freedom needed to be allowed to take its course. The nation was growing and needed to finance its defensive as well as its offensive forces.

Defensively, there was a realization that even if there had been victories against the better armed and better financed Colonial Master, a tougher battle lay ahead whose territory would extend way beyond the conventional. Schools and other institutions of learning were being set up and these would serve as new places of future conflict. Battles fought with weapons would now be fought with pens.

Men that had been trained and groomed in the science of war now found themselves on opposite sides of the battle line and later on taking sides on whether republican or democratic.
It can be noted that later on, future presidents would be judged by their military experience.  

Secondly, America was trying to balance between the need for growth and the need for moral change. One one hand  there was the desire to reject everything that had any semblance to the old colonial way, but on the other there was a need to finance its development projects and its wars. Agriculture and the need for labor, the desire to link the East and the West with a railway line, The need to extend its territories or consolidate the union.

If there was a marked change in administration which resulted in a change of language, maybe the revolution would have been more effective but languages take ages to develop and old habits die hard. English was there to stay and so were its alliances with its European Allies. The need for moral change was part of the fuel for the rejection of slavery but those who were against it believed in the greater need for labor in the vast southern territory whose lands were feeding and clothing the nation.  

Thirdly, there was the challenge of confronting 'internals' that is Original nations as well as the physical terrain that was now available to them. This could be mirrored to or with the process by which nations have to constantly learn how to balance between internal security and foreign policy.  In the modern day, every battle fought oversees helps fuel the flames of immigration and provides a fresh supply of labor in the form of refugees or malcontents. Interestingly though, if immigration reform is not balanced equally with genuine nationhood and a real sense of being, one of the first victims will be internal security. 

Fourthly the challenge of preservation and propagation. If the union was to outlast its detractors and possibly even multiply to other territories, a new way of thinking needed to form. How well placed was the US to tackle future or current trends (renaissance, agrarian age, industrial age), how independent would its educational systems be from foreign corruption. America fresh with new ideas had to be strategically placed to export its new ideas and to engage in a rapid and increasingly global world.