I've been really interested lately in the Civil War saeculum and the events leading up to the Civil War, seeing how divided we are in this country today. It seems that people here like to draw comparisons between today and the 1850s, so what I'm curious about is this:

For those of you who argue that the Civil War was a normal saeculum, with a normal-length 4T (as opposed to the truncated five year long 4T the authors describe), and a Civic archetype (which the authors insist did not exist during that turning), then how do you date the turnings and the generations? I'm just curious, I honestly don't know a whole lot about that part of American history.

S&H's turnings:

1794-1822 (Era of Good Feelings, 1T)
1822-1844 (Second Great Awakening, 2T)
1844-1860 (Mexican War and Sectionalism, 3T)
1860-1865 (Civil War, 4T)
1865-1886 (Reconstruction and Gilded Age, 1T)

Now to me it seems that the problem right off the bat is that 28-year-long 1T, the Era of Good Feelings. I've heard some argue that the War of 1812 occured on the cusp of the 1T and 2T. So if we draw the cutoff between the 1T and 2T sometime around 1812 (when the war began) or 1815 (when it ended), we would have a normal-length 1T (somewhere between 18 and 21 years long). But then when would the cutoff between the 2T and 3T be? Also, it kind of seems to be me that no matter what, we may end up with a truncated 3T. I could see 1850 being the start date for the 4T given the Compromise of 1850, and 1869 or so being the end of the 4T since that's when all of the states were back in the Union and the last of the Civil War amendments (the 15th) was passed.

Alternatively, maybe you could say that the 4T started with either Lincoln's election or Fort Sumter (1860 or 1861) and ended with the end of Reconstruction in 1877.

Either way, I'm just throwing this out there. But for those of you are really knowledgeable on this subject and believe the authors got the turnings wrong for the Civil War saeculum, I'm just curious how do you date the turnings, and for that matter, how do you date the generations?

Originally Posted by Normal

...S&H's turnings:

1794-1822 (Era of Good Feelings, 1T)
1822-1844 (Second Great Awakening, 2T)
1844-1860 (Mexican War and Sectionalism, 3T)
1860-1865 (Civil War, 4T)
1865-1886 (Reconstruction and Gilded Age, 1T)...

-I'm agnostic for a lot of this, except:

The AWI 4T ended in 1788 (US Constitution in effect) or 1790 (acceptance of Bill Of Rights), ending the "What principles of government should we have?" question which started in 2T. That would put 1t as starting between 1789 and 1791.

The ACW 4T might have begun as early as 1854 (Kansas-Nebraska as spark), and could have ended as late as 1877 (end of Reconstruction).

The upshot is, I think that there was a Civic (Hero) generation (Blue & Gray generation?), which may have been very short (perhaps only the 1843 cohort), but which did exist. It's "thinness" is based on the brevity of the generation, and the fact that much of it was "cusper": If it was only 1843, that would make it cusper on both the Nomad and Artist side.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-I'm agnostic for a lot of this, except:

The AWI 4T ended in 1788 (US Constitution in effect) or 1790 (acceptance of Bill Of Rights), ending the "What principles of government should we have?" question which started in 2T. That would put 1t as starting between 1789 and 1791.

The ACW 4T might have begun as early as 1854 (Kansas-Nebraska as spark), and could have ended as late as 1877 (end of Reconstruction).

The upshot is, I think that there was a Civic (Hero) generation (Blue & Gray generation?), which may have been very short (perhaps only the 1843 cohort), but which did exist. It's "thinness" is based on the brevity of the generation, and the fact that much of it was "cusper": If it was only 1843, that would make it cusper on both the Nomad and Artist side.

So you're suggesting that if there was a Civic generation, it was literally only one year long? Why not at least 3 or 4 years? The Civil War lasted from 1861-1865.

I find it interesting that S&H start the Civil War Crisis in 1857 in their first book, Generations, but in 1861 in their second book. Personally that gives me reason to suspect the entire thing.

My dates go as follows:

1788 - 1811
1811 - 1830 - by 1811 the Second Great Awakening was actually starting to catch on with a majority of Americans after its humble beginnings with the 1801 Cane Ridge Revival
1830 - 1850 - by 1830 Jacksonian principles had changed things completely, and the Amistad case reflects 3Ting divisiveness, not 2Ting divisiveness IMO
1850 - 1869 - Johnson Reconstruction is vastly different from Grant's Reconstruction, much bloodier too, made the North fear that another Civil War would break out any moment once again

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I find it interesting that S&H start the Civil War Crisis in 1857 in their first book, Generations, but in 1861 in their second book. Personally that gives me reason to suspect the entire thing.

Oh they did? I didn't recall that. Very good point.

My dates go as follows:

1788 - 1811 (1T)
1811 - 1830 - by 1811 the Second Great Awakening was actually starting to catch on with a majority of Americans after its humble beginnings with the 1801 Cane Ridge Revival
1830 - 1850 - by 1830 Jacksonian principles had changed things completely, and the Amistad case reflects 3Ting divisiveness, not 2Ting divisiveness IMO
1850 - 1869 - Johnson Reconstruction is vastly different from Grant's Reconstruction, much bloodier too, made the North fear that another Civil War would break out any moment once again

~Chas'88

Very good. I think my dates would run just a tad later:
1789-1815 1T
1815-1834 2T
1834-1850 3T
1850-1869 4T

Clearly watching The Abolitionists was some confirmation for this. In the early 1830s they clearly believed that all it took was moral suasion to make converts, and it caught on like wildfire. Just like the late 60s. But from 1835 on, their every attempt to persuade led to resistance, repression and division.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Oh they did? I didn't recall that. Very good point.

Chapter 5, p87, Figure 5-2 in Generations

And to quote from that same chapter on p88:

"The Civil War Crisis (1857 - 1865), in the United States, extended from the Dred Scott descision, the great Kansas debates, and the fragmentation of the Democratic party, and ended with Lee's surrender and Lincoln's assassination. Sample rising-adult leaders: Ulysses Grant, Stonewall Jackson, Andrew Carnegie "

Very good. I think my dates would run just a tad later:
1789-1815 1T
1815-1834 2T
1834-1850 3T
1850-1869 4T

Clearly watching The Abolitionists was some confirmation for this. In the early 1830s they clearly believed that all it took was moral suasion to make converts, and it caught on like wildfire. Just like the late 60s. But from 1835 on, their every attempt to persuade led to resistance, repression and division.

Ahh wait, how could I forget? The Nullification Crisis (1830 - 1833) ! That was the latter days of the Awakening. I think I confused the 1830 date with when I start that Civic Generation that's supposedly "not there". Custer's Hubris says otherwise actually...

~Chas'88

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, the timeline is
as follows:

* Revolutionary War climaxes in 1782.

* Creation of Constitution is a fairly standard activity in a First
Turning Recovery Era (or "High")

* War of 1812 - Second Turning Awakening era war

* 1840 - beginning of Crisis Era (fourth turning)

* Panic of 1857 - beginning of regeneracy

* 1861-65 Crisis Civil War, climax in 1865

* 1865-80 First Turning Recovery Era - Reconstruction

If the civil war saeculum had a normal 4T, then we would not have been ready to fight WWII. I see this as almost a point of devine intervention, personally. Had theUS had a crisis that lasted to 1881-1885, then either there would have been no high (which would have hindered industrialization), no awakening (which would have produced a drunken lot of soldiers incapable of taking on 2 of the most ruthless and efficient armies the world has ever seen), no unravelling (which would have hindered expansion of production), or the war would have occurred during the unravelling (we never would have lasted).

Likewise, had the South won the Civil War (and when you look at the two armies, the south was more than capable of beating the north until about 1864) turned out differently the trade networks, having been severed by the civil war, would be drastically reduced when WWII came around, ruining our capacity for efficient wartime production, and making both the USA and the CSA prime targets for either Germany or Japan. The US surviving the Civil War in tact and nearly a full turning early was the best case scenario for the world, and then it happened. To me this indicates there is a greater direction for human history than happenstance.

Another point I think this saeculum shows is that Democracy maybe disruptive to the cycle. Not only has every point in every saeculum since the revolution been shortened, but we also have significant variance in flow of the cycles, from the civil war's drastic shortening of the crisis to this saeculum's exceedingly murky transition periods. Now this maybe. Because the farther the hindsight the more it appears clear, but it looks to me like democracy maybe less ideal than we think it is. Prior to the west proliferating democratic governance, you had Athens and Rome whose experiments with the stuff failed once innovation ran dry.

It could be that the stable, natural normal form of government is something closer to monarchy than democracy and democracy is only necessary for points where we are ending one scope of social evolution and going into another or rapid technological innovation. When there is no need for that level of screaming hot rapid expansion, it's rather safe to drop back to a more streamlined and simple form of governance because without rapid social change, static laws make sense.

Originally Posted by Kepi

If the civil war saeculum had a normal 4T, then we would not have been ready to fight WWII. I see this as almost a point of devine intervention, personally. Had theUS had a crisis that lasted to 1881-1885, then either there would have been no high (which would have hindered industrialization), no awakening (which would have produced a drunken lot of soldiers incapable of taking on 2 of the most ruthless and efficient armies the world has ever seen), no unraveling (which would have hindered expansion of production), or the war would have occurred during the unraveling (we never would have lasted).

It may be that the Transcendental Generation was born over a longer period (1792-1821) than normal and thus forced the delay of the maturity of the Gilded Generation. To be sure the Transcendental Generation had more than its share of hotheads. Maybe some more ice-water realism would have made people less willing to wage war over the idea that slavery was a good thing had Americans looked to the example of the British Empire which had abolished slavery with little violence. (The US government eventually bought the freedom of slaves in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, which suggests that paying off the slave owners would have worked had it it been pushed). I suspect that that was the intention of Abraham Lincoln... but the naval attack on Fort Sumter put an end to that.

Likewise, had the South won the Civil War (and when you look at the two armies, the south was more than capable of beating the north until about 1864) turned out differently the trade networks, having been severed by the civil war, would be drastically reduced when WWII came around, ruining our capacity for efficient wartime production, and making both the USA and the CSA prime targets for either Germany or Japan. The US surviving the Civil War in tact and nearly a full turning early was the best case scenario for the world, and then it happened. To me this indicates there is a greater direction for human history than happenstance.

From July 1863, after the Union Army took Vicksburg, the Confederacy was cut irrevocably into two pieces. This was even more devastating than the defeat of the Confederacy at Gettysburg (the Gettysburg campaign itself a huge blunder because it exposed an advanced guard of the Confederacy in area that it could have never held. The Emancipation Proclamation was not made out of purposes 100% humanitarian; it was intended to break the agricultural system of the Confederacy by encouraging slaves to flee the plantations. Without the slave labor on the plantations, the Confederacy could not feed itself when its soldiers were at war.

Another point I think this saeculum shows is that Democracy maybe disruptive to the cycle. Not only has every point in every saeculum since the revolution been shortened, but we also have significant variance in flow of the cycles, from the civil war's drastic shortening of the crisis to this saeculum's exceedingly murky transition periods. Now this maybe. Because the farther the hindsight the more it appears clear, but it looks to me like democracy maybe less ideal than we think it is. Prior to the west proliferating democratic governance, you had Athens and Rome whose experiments with the stuff failed once innovation ran dry.

The democracies did far better than the fascist regimes and the Soviet Union in the Second World War. In general the British and the Americans brought a practical end to the war as they conquered Axis lands by quenching any lust for war. Contrast what happened after a Nazi conquest: Nazi misconduct created hatred of the conqueror and stimulated a resistance movement. The Nazis faced dangerous opposition deep behind the front, and as the Allies advanced they found fifth columns ready to stab the Nazis in the back with sabotage and guerrilla warfare. The Allies had no such problem.

It could be that the stable, natural normal form of government is something closer to monarchy than democracy and democracy is only necessary for points where we are ending one scope of social evolution and going into another or rapid technological innovation. When there is no need for that level of screaming hot rapid expansion, it's rather safe to drop back to a more streamlined and simple form of governance because without rapid social change, static laws make sense.

Democracy is still a novel system. Various forms of oligarchies were the strict norm before 1776 with occasional interludes of anarchy. Republics generally were dominated by families (think of the Medici dynasty in Florence) that had the good taste not to affect a crown and scepter. The United States was largely a collection of aristocratic republics until the time of Andrew Jackson even in the North; it is arguable that several Southern states were grossly undemocratic until the 1960s.

Democracy has a good track record of winning wars. Maybe the democratic politicians who need to show empathy to voters to win are better at judging the intentions of an enemy at war. Democracies have a better record of avoiding the purges and witch-hunts that ultimately sap the ability of a tyranny to wage war. Nazi brutality prevented the Nazis from winning support of people (like Ukrainians and Balts) who had cause to seek freedom from Soviet rule. That's before I even discuss the Holocaust. Democracies may not like war, and tyrannical aggressors may interpret pacifistic tendencies in democratic politics as evidence of the inability to fight. Such is a huge mistake. The democracies generally wage wars with lower casualty counts because they cannot treat their soldiers as cannon fodder and get away with it. Stalin could order condemned divisions to march over minefields to disarm the mines by being blown up. Hitler gave "Hold out to the last bullet" orders that ensured that the reserves necessary for waging further battles would be gutted. Democracies retreat, regroup, and strike back hard.

Political systems willing to sacrifice huge numbers of lives for a military objective invariably succeed -- at sacrificing huge numbers of lives on the battlefield. They also gut their reserves, and their soldiers rarely develop the battlefield competence that political systems less willing to sacrifice troops in human-wave attacks.

Except prior to 1776 you had Rome and Athens before. When the US government was established, it was only white male landowners voting. Fortunately the US was young, the land was cheap and cost of entry was relatively easy to bear.

Now, when you look at every attempt of the presidential system of representative democracy save one, they've all ended in dictatorship. Parlimentary systems work better, but that doesn't necessarily spell a form of government that's always useful. In times when there's no need for new laws, for instance, representative democracy would be terrible.

And as for the war record, I'd say we used to do well, and we used to be more democratic so you might have something there. However, war is not the only way democracies fall. Usually they fail, or their beaurocratic systems wind up more powerful than their elected officials. For instance the Nazis were beaten by an alliance of democratic nations and a communist dictatorship, however before that they defeated the greatest Western Industrialized Nation of that period: Germany.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, the timeline is
as follows:

* Revolutionary War climaxes in 1782.

* Creation of Constitution is a fairly standard activity in a First
Turning Recovery Era (or "High")

* War of 1812 - Second Turning Awakening era war

* 1840 - beginning of Crisis Era (fourth turning)

* Panic of 1857 - beginning of regeneracy

* 1861-65 Crisis Civil War, climax in 1865

* 1865-80 First Turning Recovery Era - Reconstruction

Refresh my memory - what happened in 1840 particularly? And how would you tell it, whatever it was, from a 3T event?

Thanks,

Pat

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Refresh my memory - what happened in 1840 particularly? And how would you tell it, whatever it was, from a 3T event?

Thanks,

Pat

Oh, I can take that one. "Hard cider for all with Tippiecanoe and Tyler too!!!!"

Log cabins were the preferred birthplace of politicans--or so they said.
It was quite possibly the most shallow, devoid of substance presidential election in American history.
Peculiar institutions down south?
Oh, never mind. That's just those troublesome abolitionsists agitating again.
They're like throwbacks from an earlier age.
Soooo 1830ish.
Those dreamers will never get anywhere.

Our own 3T era pop divas like MaDonna would have no doubt found a way to live high in that material world despite the limits of 1840ish mass communications. :

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Refresh my memory - what happened in 1840 particularly? And how would you tell it, whatever it was, from a 3T event?

Thanks,

Pat

These events happened in 1840 and were important to the US, I don't know which one he'd be using though:

Originally Posted by Important things of 1840

• January 13 – The steamship Lexington burns and sinks in icy waters, four miles off the coast of Long Island; 139 die, only four survive.
• January 19 – Captain Charles Wilkes' United States Exploring Expedition sights what becomes known as Wilkes Land in the southeast quadrant of Antarctica, claiming it for the United States and providing evidence that Antarctica is a complete continent.
• March 9 – The Wilmington and Raleigh Railroad is completed from Wilmington, North Carolina to Weldon, North Carolina. At 161.5 miles (260 km), it is the world's longest railroad.
• April – The Raleigh and Gaston Railroad is completed from Raleigh, North Carolina to near Weldon, North Carolina.
• April 2 – The Washingtonian Temperance Society is founded.
• May 7 - The Great Natchez Tornado: A massive tornado strikes Natchez, Mississippi during the early afternoon hours. Before it is over, 317 people are killed and 109 injured. It is the second deadliest tornado in U.S. history.
• November 4 – U.S. presidential election, 1840: William Henry Harrison defeats Martin Van Buren.
• Unknown - United States Census Bureau reports 6,000 free Negroes holding slaves in the nation.
• Ongoing - Second Seminole War (1835–1842)

Unless of course Queen Victoria's marriage is the culprit!

Personally, Martin Van Buren marks me as a very 3T type of President. And the election of WHH is full of 3T pomp and flair:

Originally Posted by Actual Campaign Slogans

Harrison

"Tippecanoe and Tyler too"

Van Buren

Rockabye, baby, Daddy's a Whig
When he comes home, hard cider he'll swig
When he has swug
He'll fall in a stu
And down will come Tyler and Tippecanoe.

Originally Posted by Wiki, so grain of sand

Whigs, eager to deliver what the public wanted, took advantage of this and declared that Harrison was "the log cabin and hard cider candidate," a man of the common people from the rough-and-tumble West. They depicted Harrison's opponent, President Martin Van Buren, as a wealthy snob who was out of touch with the people. In fact, it was Harrison who came from a wealthy, prominent family while Van Buren was from a poor, working family.

Yeah, just make one of your opponents look like he's a wealthy snob, while you claim to be representing the "common man" or be the president most people would like to have some "hard cider" with and win the votes. Hello 2004:



Although in 2004's case, both were actually from wealthy prominent families and there was no actual person from a poor working family... my how things improved in 164 years.

~Chas'88

Like many lf you I have a hard time squaring the CWA with the seamlessness of much of the rest of the theory.
I've just about come to the conclusion that we should take two tracks on this issue.
One one hand I feel as if we need to accept the S and H dates in that they do have the legitimacy of being the founding dates. Also, the general 80 year pattern of the American cycle holds up dispite the odd alignment of the individual turnings.

Yet a 5 year crises just does not, well, you just can't raise a child in 5 years. Cuspy and murky yes. In spades.

Anyway, here is where I am with this cycle.

1T-The Federal High, from the end of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 to the end of the second war with Britian* in 1815.
2T-The Transcendental Awakening from 1815 to the economic panic of 1837.
3T-The sectional unraveling from 1837 to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
4T-The Civil War crises from 1854 to Grants inagural in 1869.

S and H themselves discribed 1T wars as tending to be "unwanted echoes from the recently passed crises." Remember the War of 1812 was not popular in the north. It almost caused a sucession event near the 1T/2T cusp.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Except prior to 1776 you had Rome and Athens before. When the US government was established, it was only white male landowners voting. Fortunately the US was young, the land was cheap and cost of entry was relatively easy to bear.

Both of which ancient republics were oligarchic orders.The US has its hacks who would twist our formal Constitutional Republic into a system that represents wealth and bureaucratic power in practice while preserving the formality of popular representation. I look at Karl Rove and Grover Norquist.

"Republic" does not in itself mean democracy -- Ancient Sparta was a militaristic garrison state, Portugal under Salazar was a fascistic dictatorship, Slovakia during World War II was a puppet state with a puppet regime,Iran under the domination of the Ayatollahs is a Republic, all Communist regimes style themselves as Republics (if "Socialist Republics", "People's Republics", "Democratic Republics", "People's Democratic Republics", and "Soviet Socialist Republics"), which is before I mention numerous military regimes such as those of Assad, Saddam, Amin, Mobutu, Pinochet...

Now, when you look at every attempt of the presidential system of representative democracy save one, they've all ended in dictatorship. Parliamentary systems work better, but that doesn't necessarily spell a form of government that's always useful. In times when there's no need for new laws, for instance, representative democracy would be terrible.

Worse, when the system is gridlocked.

And as for the war record, I'd say we used to do well, and we used to be more democratic so you might have something there. However, war is not the only way democracies fall. Usually they fail, or their beaurocratic systems wind up more powerful than their elected officials. For instance the Nazis were beaten by an alliance of democratic nations and a communist dictatorship, however before that they defeated the greatest Western Industrialized Nation of that period: Germany.

The danger to democracy comes from unelected power assuming the formal powers of the State. The Party Boss responsible to none but himself but to whom all nominally-elected officials are responsible degrades a democracy. Just think of the role of Karl Rove during the George W. Bush Presidency. Dubya was a weak, easily-manipulated fellow.

US was in a 3T until at least 1848. The issues that led to the civil war crisis didn't really come to a head until after the Mexican War, when the government had to decide whether to bring in the newly won territories as free states or slave states.

@ pbrower -

The US has alwaus been an oligarcic order with limited exception. All our representatives are big money, almost all are old money, our information networks are primarily dominated by the whims and wills of giant megacorporations and their sponsors. We've slowly erroded the oligarchy built into who can vote, but our present system can still only support a two party system, our politicans are bought and sold by giant lobbying systems.

I don't see the intrinsic advantage of democracy in times of a generally shrinking economy, which the Industrialized Core will be experiencing by the 2070's at the latest. The US will most likely avoid this trend overall, but the effects will definitely be felt as the balance of power shifts. I'm not entirely sure representative democracy is going to survive a population stall and the resulting general economic decline in it's core regions.

With that in mind, I don't see this as an intrinsically bad thing for the average person. Systemic change is usually a good thing in a net sense, at least for a while. When it comes to long term usually people are really good at ditching systems that aren't working for them in an "all things considered" sort of way.

Dear Pat,

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

> Refresh my memory - what happened in 1840 particularly? And how
> would you tell it, whatever it was, from a 3T event?

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, that's actually not
the right question. The fourth turning is not triggered by events.
The fourth turning is triggered by a mostly unvarying and inexorable
generational change, and it's the generational change that triggers
events. (The "regeneracy" is triggered by events, but the fourth
turning is not.)

The fourth turning occurs when the previous Artist generation
completely loses influence in society, and that happens almost
unvaryingly and inexorably about 58 years after the climax of the
preceding crisis war. The Revolutionary War climaxed in 1782, and 58
years later is 1840.

In our own time, we chose not to go after Saddam Hussein in 1991, and
to have no major reaction to the World Trade Center bombing in 1992.
But we declared war against Afghanistan in 2001, and launched a ground
invasion of Iraq in 2003. The thing that changed was the end of the
preceding Artist generation, and the rise of the new Nomad generation.

In the 1840 time frame, here's an introductory description to
the Mexican-American war:

<QUOTE>Causes of the Mexican-American War

Texas gained its independence from Mexico in 1836. Initially, the
United States declined to incorporate it into the union, largely
because northern political interests were against the addition of
a new slave state. The Mexican government was also encouraging
border raids and warning that any attempt at annexation would lead
to war.

Nonetheless, annexation procedures were quickly initiated after
the 1844 election of Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be
“re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be
“re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico
and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer
to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by
moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and
Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part
of the Mexican state of Coahuila."<END QUOTE>

http://www.history.com/topics/mexican-american-war

So what changed between 1836 and 1844? The same thing that changed
between 1991 and 2003 -- the end of the preceding Artist generation,
and the rise of the new Nomad generation, and that's the fourth
turning, or Crisis Era.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Pat,



From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, that's actually not
the right question. The fourth turning is not triggered by events.
The fourth turning is triggered by a mostly unvarying and inexorable
generational change, and it's the generational change that triggers
events. (The "regeneracy" is triggered by events, but the fourth
turning is not.)

The fourth turning occurs when the previous Artist generation
completely loses influence in society, and that happens almost
unvaryingly and inexorably about 58 years after the climax of the
preceding crisis war. The Revolutionary War climaxed in 1782, and 58
years later is 1840.

In our own time, we chose not to go after Saddam Hussein in 1991, and
to have no major reaction to the World Trade Center bombing in 1992.
But we declared war against Afghanistan in 2001, and launched a ground
invasion of Iraq in 2003. The thing that changed was the end of the
preceding Artist generation, and the rise of the new Nomad generation.

In the 1840 time frame, here's an introductory description to
the Mexican-American war:

<QUOTE>Causes of the Mexican-American War

Texas gained its independence from Mexico in 1836. Initially, the
United States declined to incorporate it into the union, largely
because northern political interests were against the addition of
a new slave state. The Mexican government was also encouraging
border raids and warning that any attempt at annexation would lead
to war.

Nonetheless, annexation procedures were quickly initiated after
the 1844 election of Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be
“re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be
“re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico
and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer
to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by
moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and
Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part
of the Mexican state of Coahuila."<END QUOTE>

http://www.history.com/topics/mexican-american-war

So what changed between 1836 and 1844? The same thing that changed
between 1991 and 2003 -- the end of the preceding Artist generation,
and the rise of the new Nomad generation, and that's the fourth
turning, or Crisis Era.

Even by those standards, 1840 (and 2001 for that matter) is too early. The artist generation was at the peak of its influence in both cases. There were still plenty of artists in positions of power throughout the 1840s and throughout the 1990s (hell, we currently have an artist vice president). The compromise of 1850 was the last attempt by the compromise generation to appease both sides in the slave issue, and, I think, signified the moment at which their influence failed. The Mexican War was an unraveling type war, just like 9/11 and the war on terror. They did not solve our existing problems, instead they helped to magnify existing problems that eventually led to the 4T crises. They created a deeper rift between two opposing sides, and, in the civil war saeculum's case, led us to the bloodiest war in our history. The Mexican War resulted in a widening rift between those who wanted the new states to be free, and those who wanted them to be slave. In comparison, the War on Terror led to growing national debt and a widening rift between statist beliefs in the government protecting us for our own good (albeit the patriot act), and those who were staunchly against the expansion of governmental powers. It was hoped that Obama would take us in the opposite direction, but instead he turned out to be more statist than even George W. Bush, and now a growing number of people are literally up in arms in reaction to the unconstitutional laws he's trying to push through.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

> Even by those standards, 1840 (and 2001 for that matter) is too
> early. The artist generation was at the peak of its influence in
> both cases.

The fact that a person is at the head of a large organization does not
mean that he has the kind of influence we're talking about. He might
decide whether to go ahead with plans to build a new $10 million plant,
but the masses of middle-level managers make all the real decisions,
write the plans, decide the budgets, approve the products,
deal with customers and suppliers, and so forth. By 2001, there
may have been a number of Silents in the CEO position, but that
doesn't mean that they have much influence over the organization,
especially if he's older than the mid-level managers.

Actually, it's much worse than that. In my career as a consultant
with dozens of clients, I've been in a number of situations where the
low- and mid-level employees were actively hiding bad news from the
senior management. This is much more true of Gen-X mid-level managers
than it was of Boomer mid-level managers. I've actually been fired
from two consulting jobs where I committed the sin of telling top
level management what was going on, when the mid-level Xers were
specifically trying to hide it from him.

So, by 2001, not only did the Silents not have much influence
over anything, they actually didn't even have a clue what
was going on, in most cases.

These are all interesting responses, guys. So from what I've gathered based on these responses, the most logical start and end dates for the turnings in the Civil War saeculum are as follows -

1T, 1794-1815 (End of Whiskey Rebellion and final treaty with Britain, and end of the War of 1812)
2T, 1815-1837 (End of the War of 1812 until the economic crisis of 1837)
3T, 1837-1850 (Economic Panic of 1837 until Compromise of 1850)
4T, 1850-1869 (Compromise of 1850 until all states are re-admitted to Union in 1869)

Here's the thing I'm still having trouble with - to me, it seems that the Compromise of 1850 is a good start date for the 4T because although it appeased both sides temporarily, I still feel that admitting California into the Union as a free state royally pissed off a lot of southerners, since their proposed solution was dividing the state into two and making Northern California a free state and Southern California a slave state. So even though the Compromise of 1850 is often taught in history classes as something that delayed the inevitable (the Civil War), I see it as something that actually ignited the flames of the slavery debate, because California was going through its gold rush period, and it was a huge state with amazing potential, and yet it was admitted into the Union undivided as a free state. That had to piss off southerners.

Also, it makes for a nice, neat 19 year long 4T era, but the problem is that also makes for a slightly truncated 3T (only 13 years from 1837 to 1850). I definitely agree with others here that the Mexican-American war was a 3T war that set the stage for the slavery debate of the 4T and the Civil War itself because we acquired new territory in the western states that was either going to be admitted as free states / territories or slave states / territories.

Also, another thing I'm curious about - if we assume that the Civil War saeculum had a normal length 4T, what about the so-called missing Civic generation? What are its start and end dates in relation to the others? We've talked about the turnings, but how would you adjust the generational boundaries if you believe the Civil War saeculum had a normal 4T?

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Normal

These are all interesting responses, guys. So from what I've gathered based on these responses, the most logical start and end dates for the turnings in the Civil War saeculum are as follows -

1T, 1794-1815 (End of Whiskey Rebellion and final treaty with Britain, and end of the War of 1812)
2T, 1815-1837 (End of the War of 1812 until the economic crisis of 1837)
3T, 1837-1850 (Economic Panic of 1837 until Compromise of 1850)
4T, 1850-1869 (Compromise of 1850 until all states are re-admitted to Union in 1869)

Here's the thing I'm still having trouble with - to me, it seems that the Compromise of 1850 is a good start date for the 4T because although it appeased both sides temporarily, I still feel that admitting California into the Union as a free state royally pissed off a lot of southerners, since their proposed solution was dividing the state into two and making Northern California a free state and Southern California a slave state. So even though the Compromise of 1850 is often taught in history classes as something that delayed the inevitable (the Civil War), I see it as something that actually ignited the flames of the slavery debate, because California was going through its gold rush period, and it was a huge state with amazing potential, and yet it was admitted into the Union undivided as a free state. That had to piss off southerners.

Also, it makes for a nice, neat 19 year long 4T era, but the problem is that also makes for a slightly truncated 3T (only 13 years from 1837 to 1850). I definitely agree with others here that the Mexican-American war was a 3T war that set the stage for the slavery debate of the 4T and the Civil War itself because we acquired new territory in the western states that was either going to be admitted as free states / territories or slave states / territories.

Also, another thing I'm curious about - if we assume that the Civil War saeculum had a normal length 4T, what about the so-called missing Civic generation? What are its start and end dates in relation to the others? We've talked about the turnings, but how would you adjust the generational boundaries if you believe the Civil War saeculum had a normal 4T?

Thoughts?

There's not so much of an Awakening going on from 1834 - 1837. The Nullification Crisis to me is the end of the Awakening.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

There's not so much of an Awakening going on from 1834 - 1837. The Nullification Crisis to me is the end of the Awakening.

~Chas'88

OK. So how's this?

1794-1815, 1T
1815-1834, 2T
1834-1850, 3T
1850-1869, 4T
1869-1886, 1T

Okay, it's time to stop dealing in political science fiction here and deal with reality.

Yes a lot of southerners dreamed of splitting California in two circa 1850. But there was a reason why it didn't happen--the resources available, or rather not available in SoCal. in 1850. Simply put, NoCal had all of the cards in 1850. It had most of the water in the state--and it had the gold.


By contrast in 1850 SoCal had a Mexicanized Spanish colonial mission culture with all of 8000 people And, considering that an area was expected to have a minimum population of 60k before qualifying for statehood, there just was no way that a viable state was possible south of the Tehachapi.

Yes today SoCal. would be a megastate all by itself--thanks to 20th century irrigation and other massive projects.
But all of that impossible in 1850.

Which leads us back to the reality that the Compromise of 1850 dealt with California in the only way it could have been dealt with in 1850. The US wa either going to accept the then NoCal. dominated Golden State as a free state or else the California Republic would have kept its sovernty, and its gold, out of the union.

This is one of the reason why I can' t believe that the Compromise of 1850 sparked the 4T. Also, the early 1850's show an unraveling culture in America in many ways. In New York P.T. Barnums' museium was still popular. Perry's trips to Japan diverted attention away from the slavery question and most importantly, the election of 1852 was another attempt by the Whigs and Democrats to aviod the issues that would soon become irrepressible. Soon but not yet. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was still to come.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Okay, it's time to stop dealing in political science fiction here and deal with reality.

Yes a lot of southerners dreamed of splitting California in two circa 1850. But there was a reason why it didn't happen--the resources available, or rather not available in SoCal. in 1850. Simply put, NoCal had all of the cards in 1850. It had most of the water in the state--and it had the gold.


By contrast in 1850 SoCal had a Mexicanized Spanish colonial mission culture with all of 8000 people And, considering that an area was expected to have a minimum population of 60k before qualifying for statehood, there just was no way that a viable state was possible south of the Tehachapi.

Yes today SoCal. would be a megastate all by itself--thanks to 20th century irrigation and other massive projects.
But all of that impossible in 1850.

Which leads us back to the reality that the Compromise of 1850 dealt with California in the only way it could have been dealt with in 1850. The US wa either going to accept the then NoCal. dominated Golden State as a free state or else the California Republic would have kept its sovernty, and its gold, out of the union.

This is one of the reason why I can' t believe that the Compromise of 1850 sparked the 4T. Also, the early 1850's show an unraveling culture in America in many ways. In New York P.T. Barnums' museium was still popular. Perry's trips to Japan diverted attention away from the slavery question and most importantly, the election of 1852 was another attempt by the Whigs and Democrats to aviod the issues that would soon become irrepressible. Soon but not yet. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was still to come.

To play devil's advocate here -

I would argue that whether or not it was realistic for slavery to be legal in California in any way, shape, or form is irrelevant. What does matter is people's (ie southerners') reaction to California being admitted as a free state. Does it matter that there wasn't a chance in hell for California to be divided into a slave state and a free state? I would argue no, but it does matter that southerners were so up in arms about it that we felt a need to draft a Compromise of 1850 in the first place.

Someone earlier made a good point about how the Mexican-American War really put slavery on the forefront because we acquired new territories that were either going to be free or slave states, and that's true. This became a real issue after the end of the war in 1848. To me, 1854 seems a tad bit too late - the events leading to directly to the Civil War were already happening several years before that.

The entire 1850s decade, in my opinion, set the stage for the crisis climax, which of course was the Civil War itself. The entire decade was spent trying to avert the Civil War, thanks to the doings of the Compromise Generation. The Mexican-American war set the stage for the 1850s though, which is of course why it has to be considered a 3T event.