Civil War and Federalism

One other thought to remember. Every major civil war has always ended with the stronger control central government. England, France, Russia, Spain, the U.S., the Meiji Restoration, China, Iran, Turkey and probably countless others.

In all of these revolutions, whatever the pretense, the result was always the national government taking more control accompanied by the abolition of regional independence. This leads me to conclude that most of the civil wars were about control rather than the ideals that they supposedly represented.

The U.S. Civil War being a great example of where "democracy" really meant - stronger control by the central government rather than the state governments, which are theoretically more answerable to their populations, being in ultimate control. Even the Fall of the Roman Republic can be characterized this way. Each side was pretending to save the Republic and each side became increasingly autocratic in its tactics.

In Yugoslavia, their civil war was cause by the central government attempting to exert more control over the relatively independent ethnic enclaves. The end result was of course several independent, but very centralized national governments rather than the more relaxed federalism under Tito.

My book will be called "The Pretense of Revolution." This is likely a natural result of every civil war being, at its heart, a military operation. The army most likely to succeed is the one that is most organized and centrally commanded. A centralized command, upon victory, retains that characteristic even after it has achieved victory and therefore constructs the new government in that image.

1. Ideals and idealism
2. The Military and central command
3. The Takeover
4. Abolition of competing political entities
5. The end of idealism