Excluding natural disasters, any situation where the National Guard is deployed is almost by definition a situation where large groups of people are rejecting traditional political authority.

To reiterate, those examples weren't isolated incidents; just a sample of some of the more notorious ones. And they each reflected deep, widespread discontent and resentment among significant portions of the population and across extended periods of time.

Let's not split hairs, here. Not only is it ridiculous to equivocate these situations with civil war, but the re-definition itself seems utterly oblivious to the tumultuous political history of the United States.

The United States was founded by a group of enlightened but very privileged individuals. The ruling class has throughout the years more often than not fit the same mold, punctuated by periodic populist movements (liberal and conservative), but always in the presence of considerable social and political tensions that beget explosive and often violent protest. To a large degree it's been the privilege of the ruling class--their ability to weather these upheavals and retain their grasp of the power structures--that has kept this country from descending into civil war all but once in our history. Another significant aspect is how incredibly conservative Americans have always been. Even during some of our most violent periods, like the Civil War and the 50 years of labor struggles centered around the turn of the 20th century (basically, everything from 1820 to 1920), even the most progressive and liberal elements of American society (abolitionists, labor movements) during our most violent periods were on-the-whole conspicuously conservative relative to their international counterparts. This has helped keep the privileged in power, as well as throttled the spread of radical social movements, left and right. But it's also been by it's nature more tolerant of discrimination and bigotry. The vast majority of Americans have _always_ at least nominally expressed support for lofty, idealistic political notions about liberty and equality, but we're resistant at incorporating those ideals into our social, political, and legal culture; and we have an incredible ability to deny the existence of real harm to groups of people, which I guess is a manifestation of our cognitive dissonance.

If you read accounts of industrial workers during the labor movement, for example, you hear the same tortured calculus you hear today about, say, the Black Lives Matter movement--people agree in principle with the social movements goals (equality, justice, etc) but think that the particular groups pursuing them are too radical, exaggerate the immediate harms, and antagonize conservative elements. So, for example, when National Guard troops machine gun down striking workers, people might point to the bombings of railroads by Irish mineworkers in Appalachia to create a narrative which diminishes culpability for atrocities all around, throwing up their hands and embracing a sentiment that blames "too much change, too fast". Sound familiar?

None of the discord we see today is new or even remotely unprecedented. The 21st century so far seems to be somewhat regressive compared to the end of the 20th century, but at worst it has been a regression to the mean. Things would have to get _much_ worse before they could rightly be considered to have even crossed our historical arc.

Don't underestimate our ability to whitewash the past. Conservatives seem more prone to do this than liberals, especially given how passionately many on the left remember and re-contextualize past sins. But IMO the difference is minor compared to how strongly everybody exhibits a bias to whitewash history, perceiving new turbulence as unprecedented. People _like_ doomsday prophecies. When we look at our own lived experiences we invariably have a more positive outlook; but we assume the rest of the world is going to hell in a hand-basket. I suppose this predilection might serve a purpose. If something doesn't immediately seem threatening, perhaps the only way we can engage ourselves is if we exaggerate a coming peril, directly or indirectly discounting the severity of past problems. I dunno. In any event, it's a powerful and pervasive bias.