Well, the American Civil War does not really fit within my definition of insurgency, as the people worked through the law, through government, and it was the government of the various states that declared their independence from the Central US Government. Considering that each of these states began as a colony, and then became fully sovereign states that agreed to work with each other (while retaining all sovereignty in themselves) under the articles, and then surrendering a portion of that sovereignty under the Constitution with the belief that they could always withdraw from the Union if they decided it didn't work out; their actions were reasonable under the law. Not acceptable, but reasonable. I believe President Jackson put an end to the legality of such a withdrawal, but the Civil War drew from the first real test of that law. It was warfare, pure and simple between two sovereigns. When the Union prevailed it validated the Jackson holding.
Now, that said:
Did "conditions of insurgency" exist in the South? Yes.
Did the southern populace choose a "strategy of insurgency"? No.
Could they have? Yes.
Could the nation have devolved into insurgency at the end of the Civil War? Certainly.
Why did that not happen? Certainly there were those who wanted to, but the full and immediate focus on true reconciliation by Grant at Appomattox and Lincoln; the bringing the South back into the fold as full partners; and yes, the full and complete military defeat coupled with a defeat of the will of the majority of the populace to resist, all combined to put this to rest. The loud voices that pushed to punish the south following the war were every bit as dangerous to the survival of the union as the loud voices to secede were prior to the war. I think the wounds are largely healed now, but that took several generations.
Oh, and what does my approach tell us:
1. That it is Governments who cause insurgency, not Populaces.
- Therefore resolution comes through understanding the populace and addressing the failures of governance.
2. Each populace assesses it situation with its governance through its own lens.
- Any objective measure of what insurgency is or is not would require the universal application of someone else's lens; and would therefore be universally inaccurate.
3. There are certain critical aspects of governance that seem to contribute the most to conditions of insurgency.
- What actions or inactions might cause such perceptions is unique to each recipient society.
- A diverse state like Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Philippines with multiple distinct societies assessing their own unique perceptions of a single, poor government, may well give rise to multiple insurgencies that are each very unique. What they all hold in common is that they are responses to poor governance. The solution lies in understanding these unique perspective, in understanding what perceptions are most critical to promoting insurgency, and focusing on fixing the aspects of governance that are driving them.
I admit I turn the equation upside down. I place the responsibility on government to govern well, and I fully support the right and duty of the populace to act illegally when no legal means exists, when government refuses to do so.
A right is something that cannot be taken away.
A duty is something one must perform.
I personally am not ready to re-write the documents or modify the principles upon which this nation was founded simply because our current approaches to foreign policy have made them inconvenient. I feel strongly about that, and sometimes that emotion slips into my work.
Now, I realize this is an American document, so I am not saying that we need to force every government in the world to recognize this same right, this same duty for their own populace. What I am saying, is that when we dedicate ourselves to supporting those governments that do not, we set ourselves up for fair criticism for supporting the suppression or rights in other populaces that we demand for ourselves. Many an insurgent populace has held up the American Declaration (Vietnam and Algeria to name but two) and looked to America for help in their plight. We do not have a great record in answering those calls. I think when we look for ways to move forward, we will do best by first looking back to our own roots and being more empathetic of challenges faced by others today that in many ways mirror our own.
Today we are attacked most vigorously and most persistently by the populaces of our allies. We really need to think about that.
Bookmarks