Thread by @Parkesland

Bit of a curve ball today: tweeting about parallels between the U.S. civil war and Brexit. #twitterstorians and #Brexit wonks take note. (I'm looking at you @Sime0nStylites, @chrisgreybrexit, @jonlis1, @contestedground, @CeesHeere, @lottelydia, @MHernandezGdV and @Usherwood) /1

Was taking a break from lecture prep and spent some time revisiting a terrific book published in 1963 called "Terrible Swift Sword" by the journalist/historian Bruce Catton. Catton wasn't exactly a professional historian, but his writing about the Civil War was captivating /2

In a passage describing the summer of 1862 - when the war was in its second year, many thousands already dead, but the major battles of Antietam, Gettysburg etc. still ahead - Catton touched on a mood prevalent among many, if not most, of the political elite on both sides /3

I quote him below, highlighting the phrases that that struck me as particularly redolent of the situation the UK government/Tories vis a vis the EU find themselves in now: /4

"There was nobility in the idea that there ought to be a peace without victory; yet in August of 1862 *America's tragedy was that it was caught between the madness of going on with the war and the human impossibility of stopping it.*" /5

"Secession had been a direct result of the outcome of the election of 1860. To restore the status quo would be to assume that either the North or the South had had a great change of heart - that the North would not again go Republican, ..." /6

"... or that the South would quietly acquiesce if it did. Neither Mr. Lincoln nor Mr. Davis [the Confederate president] was going to assume anything of the kind. Each man was fighting for a dreadful simplicity." /7

(Here comes the kicker) "*Neither one could describe a solution acceptable to him without describing something wholly unacceptable to the other; neither man could accept anything less than complete victory without admitting complete defeat.*" /8

Now, to be VERY clear: the substance of the current negotiations over the UK/EU's future relationship is in no way reminiscent of the conflict between the Northern and Southern states in the 1860s. /9

The former is being fought over trade, regulatory regimes, and the limits of multilateral jurisdiction, the latter was fought over whether it was acceptable for a government to limit the ability of individuals to enslave people. /10

Also, no matter how bad a no-deal situation might get, I do not believe the current situation will precipitate open violence between the respective parties. /11

However, from a historical, or rather a historian's perspective, it is instructive to note how structural and institutional forces specifically designed to facilitate compromise can, ironically, create the precise conditions for compromise to become impossible. /12

For the US in the 1800s, democratic elections and the sectional balance achieved by separation of powers and the federal system were designed to compel competing factions to seek compromise (see: 1820, 1850, etc.) , or at least leave each other quietly to their own devices. /13

And it worked ... until 1860, when a democratic election, won on a sectional basis, created a situation where the representatives of one faction (the South) no longer had any incentive to compromise. /14

For the UK Tories today, a referendum intended to resolve that party's enduring discomfort with the EU has precipitated an acrimonious debate (soon to be political crisis) that specifically precludes the possibility of negotiated resolution /15

For the Tory Brexit hardliners, Brexit, as they define it, must be the result of the referendum of 2016, and to assume they would accept anything less would be to assume they had had a great change of heart. /16

However, because of the Irish border, Brexit, as the hardliners define it, cannot be implemented without tearing up the Good Friday Agreement - which was itself agreed to as a way of facilitating compromise! /17

Put another way, No Brexit acceptable to the ERG can be described without describing something wholly unacceptable to the EU, Ireland, and supporters of the GFA. /18

And so, the Tories are caught between the madness of going on with Brexit - tearing up the GFA, leaving without a deal, shortages, etc. - and the political impossibility of stopping it, lest they defy the 'will of the people', split the party, and topple their government /19

Mercifully for us, it is very unlikely that the next few years will be anything like as horrible as 1862-1865 were for the US. But, then, even by 1862 most Americans, North and South, would not have imagined the war going on for 3 more years /20

I tell my students never to use the word 'inevitable' when talking about historical events. Our whole professional is based on the premise that events have causes and reasons for happening; they don't occur regardless of what we do /21

But, I do tell my students that events can be inexorable. Once certain conditions are put in place, or certain decisions are taken, the sequence of successive events becomes virtually impossible to disrupt. /22

For the US, the inexorable process that led them to Civil War arguably began at the Constitutional Convention in the 1780s, though I would argue the real catalyst was the Mexican War. /23

For Tories today, one might make the bleak assessment that between the 2016 referendum, and the adoption by the Tory hardliners of a definition of Brexit as 'a complete break from the EU', they are inexorably screwed. /24

However, I think the more useful lesson to draw, for all of us, is that human political institutions, even ones designed to facilitate democratic governance, can nevertheless lead to unintended, undesirable and even undemocratic outcomes when they are employed irresponsibly 25/25