The War between the States from 1861-1865 is often called the Civil War, but that is incorrect.  A civil war is a war fought by factions whose goal is to take control of a national government.  That is not what the Southern States were seeking to do when they seceded from the union; they were not interested in conquering Washington, DC (That city isn’t even the capital of a national government; it’s a federal government.  And, yes, the difference between the two is significant.).  Southerners only wanted to do what their forefathers had done several decades earlier in 1776:  Separate from a people and a government that they felt was threatening their way of life, in their case, a Christian, agrarian way of life.

That said, what we are witnessing today with the battles being waged in State governments over federal congressional districts could be a preparatory stage for a real civil war.  These redistricting battles are nothing else but a non-violent method of gaining or retaining control of the federal House of Representatives – i.e., taking control of a powerful branch of the federal government.  The heated rhetoric shows how tenuous that non-violence is:

‘Top Democrats are speaking — and acting — in increasingly existential terms over the audacious Trump-backed push to redraw Texas’ congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterms.

‘ . . . “This is a war. We are at war. And that’s why the gloves are off, and I say bring it on,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul declared at a press conference Monday, accusing Texas Republicans of a “legal insurrection.”

‘ . . . Outside Texas, key Democratic governors have launched an aggressive counteroffensive to try to neutralize the GOP’s redistricting push.

• ‘In California, Newsom is eyeing a November special election that would sideline the state’s independent redistricting commission and ask voters to approve a new, legislature-drawn map favoring Democrats.
• ‘In New York, Hochul said Democrats have “no choice” but to pursue a constitutional amendment to authorize new maps — though it wouldn’t appear on the ballot until 2027 at the earliest.
• ‘In Illinois, where the congressional map is already heavily gerrymandered, Gov. J.B. Pritzker has vowed to protect fleeing Texas Democrats and left the door open to further revisions of the state’s map.

‘Between the lines: Newsom, who’s made no secret of his presidential ambitions, has openly accused Trump of “rigging” the midterms and suggested California could redraw its map to eliminate all nine GOP-held seats.

‘ . . . Hochul, who is running for re-election in 2026, has emerged as an unlikely face of the Democratic resistance.

• ‘She called Monday for disbanding New York’s independent redistricting commission and embracing partisan hardball, telling reporters that she’s “tired of fighting this fight with my hand tied behind my back.”
• ‘”I cannot ignore that the playing field has changed dramatically, and shame on us if we ignore that fact and cling tight to the vestiges of the past,” Hochul said.

‘The bottom line: Both sides are keenly aware that a Democratic victory in 2026 would grind Trump’s agenda to a halt and potentially lead to his third impeachment.

• ‘”He knows he’s going to lose in the midterms, and we have the opportunity to de facto end the Trump presidency in less than 18 months,” Newsom said at a press conference Monday.

• ‘”That’s what’s at stake”’ (Zachary Basu, ‘Democrats go nuclear in redistricting arms race,’ Axios, via msn.com).

This is not the only pressure point in relations between the Red and Blue States:  There are battles over voter ID laws, lawfare, the Electoral College, and ballot removals, as well as Blue State shield laws that protect abortion-pill-dispensing doctors from being prosecuted in pro-life Red States where abortions are illegal.  And the list could go on.

These tensions threaten to eradicate what little remains of the goodwill between the Red and Blue States.  There are not many options to ease them:

1. One of the sides capitulates. Not likely in the current political atmosphere.
2. Both sides take a step back and negotiate to reach a mutually beneficial settlement. Again, not likely given the brinksmanship we’re witnessing.
3. The two blocs of States, the more conservative and the more progressive, agree to separate and form new confederations. Not likely either, because of the falsehoods that have been taught for generations about State sovereignty, secession, etc.

Therefore, the zero-sum political struggle in which the States are engaged seems likely to intensify.  But we have only ourselves to blame.

In Christian history there a number of instances of appeals being made to supernatural arbitrators (i.e., the saints) to resolve intractable disagreements.  One famous event occurred during the Fourth Ecumenical/Universal Council of the Church (+451) in Chalcedon.  The two sides in the contest, those who correctly believed that Christ had two natures (divine and human) and those who incorrectly taught that He had only one nature (divine), wrangled for days but could not come to an agreement about the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Then it was decided that an appeal be made to the Great Martyr, St Euphemia:

‘The holy Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople proposed that the Council submit the decision of the Church dispute to the Holy Spirit, through His undoubted bearer Saint Euphemia the All-Praised, whose wonderworking relics had been discovered during the Council’s discussions. The Orthodox hierarchs and their opponents wrote down their confessions of faith on separate scrolls and sealed them with their seals. They opened the tomb of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia and placed both scrolls upon her bosom. Then, in the presence of the emperor Marcian (450-457), the participants of the Council sealed the tomb, putting on it the imperial seal and setting a guard to watch over it for three days. During these days both sides imposed upon themselves strict fast and made intense prayer. After three days the patriarch and the emperor in the presence of the Council opened the tomb with its relics: the scroll with the Orthodox confession was held by Saint Euphemia in her right hand, and the scroll of the heretics lay at her feet. Saint Euphemia, as though alive, raised her hand and gave the scroll to the patriarch. After this miracle many of the hesitant accepted the Orthodox confession, while those remaining obstinate in the heresy were consigned to the Council’s condemnation and excommunication’ (‘Greatmartyr Euphemia the All-praised,’ oca.org).

Whether in the East or the West, appeals to saints as arbitrators were commonplace:

‘ . . . in the shimmering presence of relics, people attempted to resolve uncertainties in daily life and thereby avoid such unsettling alternatives as violence or long feuds.  Many swore oaths before relics and tombs.  When a dispute between a man and his neighbors at Bourges could not be settled, city magistrates insisted that both parties take public oaths before the relics of St. Stephen.  In the presence of these relics doubt was eliminated, because the accuser was suddenly thrown to the pavement; [St] Gregory [of Tours, +6^th century] added a sharp comment:  “The power of the saint revealed all”’ (Raymond Van Dam, Leadership & Community in Late Antique Gaul, U of California Press, Berkeley, Cal., 1992, p. 190).

Our foolish pride and sense of self-sufficiency has caused us in the US and in many other Western countries to reject not simply the beneficial help of these very real saints but their very existence.  And what have we got for all that?  We are at one another’s throats, unable to peacefully settle our political problems.

Separating Christianity from public life was a terrible idea.  Our increasingly frayed and fraught political life here in the States is just the latest evidence of that.  It is a sad irony that we are increasingly open to allowing superintelligences to govern us in various ways, only it is not the superhumanity of God’s deified saints but rather the works of our own hands, the idols of artificial intelligence, our latest and perhaps fatal act of hubris.