Opinion
Several editorials have recently been published in major newspapers making sure we all know what the real cause of the War was: Slavery. Locally, Gary Dickson reaffirmed this point of view in an editorial entitled “Nothing to Celebrate.”
This view typically hinges on two premises: First, that President Abraham Lincoln was committed “to end slavery in America,” and second, that when the Deep South seceded, they referred to their belief in the inferiority of blacks and their rightly being slaves as justification. Essentially, the idea is that the South was wrong, the North was right, and it is wrong for Americans today to celebrate Confederate heritage.
But these editorials miss the mark. Often they either conveniently leave out important facts or distort them to prove their point.
One example of many is the idea that Abraham Lincoln's primary focus was to free the slaves. In reality, Lincoln promised to maintain slavery where it was. He wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race.”
Was this idle political posturing? Not at all. Little known to most of modern America was something called the “Corwin Amendment.” This was a proposed Constitutional amendment (intended to be the 13th, ironically) that stated: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
Abraham Lincoln endorsed this amendment, and it passed Congress after the Deep South seceded.
Shockingly, Lincoln formally endorsed this amendment in his First Inaugural. It was sent to the states for ratification, where it awaits a vote to this very day! (It has yet to be withdrawn.) Three states have already voted to approve it (Ohio, Maryland and Lincoln's own Illinois.) Unbelievable, but true!
Little known too is that Lincoln's famed Emancipation Proclamation was carefully worded to preserve slavery everywhere it existed under federal control. It only attempted to free those slaves that were under Confederate jurisdiction (thus is actual practice, freeing hardly any slaves at all). Slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, parts of Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana were kept as slaves throughout Lincoln's life. They were not freed until long after Lincoln was dead and buried (by the eventually approved modified 13th Amendment.) So much for Lincoln's commitment to end slavery!
I won't go into quotes of Lincoln regarding blacks, but they were just as racist and incendiary as anything a southerner said at the time. Some of his quotes regarding blacks would make your skin crawl. Suffice to say here that Lincoln's solution to the “Freeman Problem” was to “ship them back to Africa.” The African country of Liberia was populated by freed slaves, shipped back by organizations that Lincoln endorsed and supported.
So when you read statements like “Abraham Lincoln's promise was to end slavery in America,” it is important to get the rest of the story to put things in a proper balance.
Google “Corwin Amendment,” “Emancipation Proclamation,” “Lincolns racist quotes” and “history of Liberia.” For extra credit look up “The Morrill Tariff” to decide whether taxation may have something to do with the War. Read up on these, and then re-read the “it was all about slavery” editorials. You will read them in a new light.
And it begs the question: If Lincoln and the North were willing to guarantee slavery forever in the South, then what was the real reason for a war that took more than 600,000 lives and destroyed half of the country?
In every conflict, the winners write the history. Have we been given a sanitized view of the Civil War?
We will never get to the truth as long as we are fed selected damning quotes from one side while damning quotes and actions of the other side are swept under the rug.
Don't accept at face value what you read regarding the causes of The War. Use the Internet and the library to dig beneath the “accepted” understanding. Verify, research and verify again. You still might not agree with those who celebrate the Confederacy, but you will have a far better understanding of what is motivating them, and it's not a yearning for returning to slavery.
These issues are being discussed in-depth at the Redwood Empire Civil War Roundtable that is meeting monthly. The next meeting will be held Feb. 1 at the Tallman Hotel in Upper Lake. The meeting starts at 6:15 p.m. There is no charge.
Phil Smoley lives in Lakeport, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Phil Smoley
There have been articles and commentaries and news clips galore blaming everyone from Sarah Palin to Jan Brewer to Sharon Angle to the Tea Party to Barack Obama.
The main focus of the blame seems to be the use of rhetoric in political circles that uses violent imagery, such as the poster Sarah Palin posted on Facebook, showing political opponents in a rifle’s crosshairs.
There are many other instances that have been brought up, but since that’s not the heart of this piece I won’t list them all here.
The main belief being put forth is that people in the public arena are being careless with their words, have used threatening imagery in their public speeches, are to blame for Jared Loughner’s actions on Saturday and must be held accountable for it.
There has been a backlash too, people saying that Loughner was a lone crazy man, solely responsible for his actions. There’s a lot of support for that angle too.
Reports are coming in that he was mentally ill, had been kicked out of college and asked not to return until he had had a psychological evaluation, and that he was enthralled by “Mein Kampf,” the Communist Manifesto and Nazi propaganda. But again, placing blame isn’t quite the point I’m trying to make here.
Loughner, as the man holding the gun, is the responsible party. Whatever his influences were, he has to bear the burden of his actions.
That his direct influences do not seem to be what people initially were decrying as his influences, i.e., Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, etc., doesn’t mean that they aren’t a contributing factor. I think people jumped to that conclusion because there is a sort of sense to it.
Maybe Loughner didn’t spend a lot of time researching Sarah Palin’s poster, but that doesn’t mean that some of the rhetoric that is so commonplace now didn’t filter down to him, making him think that shooting someone you disagree with is an acceptable solution to the disagreement.
Was it just Sarah Palin though? No. Was it just Sarah Palin and Jan Brewer and Sharon Angle and the Tea Party and Barack Obama? No. Was it just people in the public arena? No.
I contend that we all, as a people, have allowed our speech to be littered with violent imagery and vulgarisms that we now accept as normal. I think collectively we know it’s wrong, our sensibilities are struggling with it and this tragic incident is giving us an opportunity to say “enough.”
Remember George Carlin’s “Seven Words You Can’t Say on TV” routine? (Look it up, I’m not going to list them here.) Out of the seven, two are no longer banned on American television, four are allowed on British telly, movies use them liberally, and all are in common everyday use all around us.
In the Old West, to use the phrase “Son of a b*tch” would be taken so personally it would likely get you shot. Now people say it when they stub their toe. It’s all so casual. No one seems to notice or care if there are small children around to hear it.
And with the advent of the Internet, where everyone gets to speak their mind, we see the filth in those minds in the comments section below any news article.
My husband once wrote an article posted in this very news source about the controversial subject of genetically engineered food, and one reader apparently disagreed with his stance.
The reader could have chosen to say, “I disagree with your position, and believe you are misinformed,” but instead chose to say, “You’re wrong, you f***ing idiot!” and then suggested my husband drink anti-freeze and die.
Why the vulgar speech? Why the personal attack? Why the violent suggestion, over an article about … food? And comments like this are common all over the Internet – this was not an isolated incident.
It is not just people in the public arena who are to blame for this climate of violent rhetoric we live in. After all, the ones on stage are a reflection of the masses. We all need to reflect on our contribution to the morass.
Common sense tells us that the more we let fly with our words, the more that disturbed people such as Loughner, who may not have the mental filter or discipline to keep his feelings just to his words, will think that violent speech approves violent action.
We all need to reflect on the things we say, and how we say them. All things can be expressed in different ways, every idea may be conveyed with alternative means … see what I did there? I said the same thing two ways. We don't have to resort to vulgarity and violent imagery to get our point across.
We can, and should, clean up our communications, both our public officials and the private sector – which isn't so private anymore.
No, folks, I’m not saying we need to stop talking. I’m not trying to curtail freedom of speech. I’m requesting that we all return to civility, think before we speak, and if we disagree, disagree politely. Thank you for reading.
Lacy Christensen lives in Clearlake Oaks, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Lacy Christensen
How to resolve AdBlock issue?