Lincoln’s struggle with slavery

Posted on March 7, 2011 by Mike Shortall

The following letter was submitted to The Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial page in response to a very well written piece on Abraham Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address 150 years ago. My motivation was my frustration with complaints – mainly from liberals scribes and commentators – that have recently taken to criticizing any commemoration in the southern U.S. of its Civil War history as “celebrating slavery”.

In my opinion, it’s the same old, tired foolishness – done on both sides of the political spectrum – to portray groups you don’t agree with as raving lunatics looking to destroy everyone’s way of life. The Left does it here, as they do whenever the Tea Party gathers; looking for the most unacceptable messages on signs and t-shirts from the loonies on the fringes, who tend to be attracted to large crowds. The Right tends to do the same thing with coverage of the union protests of late; looking for those who are way out there on the fringes of decorum or sanity.

When it comes to Southern commemorations of the Civil War, you can read letter after letter in The Inqy, or catch Bill Maher and the MSNBC afternoon/evening rabble criticizing southerners for daring to recognize their Civil War history. Yet, I have yet to see any evidence that anyone at these well-publicized events are “celebrating slavery”.

The letter:

Thanks for publishing William C. Kashatus’ piece that sheds a little light on President Abraham Lincoln’s struggle with balancing his constitutional mandate to preserve The Union and the maelstrom over slavery that was consuming the nation. Not many people – especially those who have taken to criticizing southerners for daring to commemorate their Civil War “slave history” – realize that Lincoln never promised to do anything about the institution of slavery. And that he didn’t act upon it until he was certain the issue could solidify The Union’s support in the North and it’s position internationally.

Perhaps Mr. Kashatus’ next contribution (for Memorial Day?) could focus on all those common soldiers on both sides – fresh immigrants and stand-in draftees in the North and poor dirt farmers in the South – who fought and died with absolutely no personal or moral stand on the issue of slavery. Then perhaps we can bury the disingenuous criticism of southern commemorations of their Civil War history as nothing more than celebrations of slavery.

Certainly there are inappropriate ways in which anyone – north or south of the Mason-Dixon – can sully the memory of one of the most defining moments in U.S. history. But the contention that every Civil War commemoration in the South is inexorably linked to commemorating slavery is a disingenuous attempt to paint one group of people with a wide brush all in the name of political expediency.

People often lose sight of the fact that until 1964, the South was known as the Solid South due to its penchant for voting solid Democrat. Those were southern Dems standing in the doorways of schools, blocking black access. And Democrats who controlled the most violent states during the civil rights struggle.

My point being, these southern commemorations – that liberals so abhor – were cultivated largely under Democrat leadership. So they really have no room for false righteous anger.

(The Inquirer notified that they are considering the above letter for publication.)

On this date in 1875 …

Posted on March 1, 2011 by Mike Shortall

… President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

This tends to surprise many people, even those who can refer to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, maybe even the Act of 1957. But it’s a bit of a shock that Civil Rights was the topic of an act of Congress only ten years after the end of The Civil War. Yet political and legal battles would be waged for almost another century before full civil rights law was established.

The 1875 Act was written in an attempt to provide equal access to public accommodations such as restaurants, trains, theatres, etc. The reason why so many have problems recognizing the earliest civil rights law was that it was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1883. Its rejection by the country’s highest court was based on the law’s lack of standing within the context of the 13th and 14th Amendments. Fact is, in its eight-year existence the 1875 Act was rarely – if ever – enforced anyway.

What is most telling to me, is the realization as early as the 1870s that only reliance upon national law held any potential for mitigating the heinous treatment of African-Americans, both pre-Civil War freemen and newly liberated slaves. And that despite this realization, it would take another 89 years before full civil rights legislation was enacted.

In 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 provided voting rights to black Americans in a way that was ineffectual in increasing their political power. Then-Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson is touted with the tricky political accomplishment of both progressing the measure through Congress, while at the same time ensuring the bill’s evisceration by assigning it to a Judiciary Committee run by anti-civil rights Senator James Eastland (MS). The bill’s eventual passage also had to survive the longest lasting Senate filibuster by Senator Strom Thurmond, who railed on about nothing in particular for 24 hours, 18 minutes.

It would not be until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that full civil rights to women as well as blacks would be institutionalized. Oddly enough, the Act of 1964 was signed into law by the very same, now-President Lyndon Baines Johnson, after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.

The issue of gay marraige put to rest!

Posted on February 2, 2011 by Mike Shortall

There always seems to be a sense of accomplishment whenever we can check an item off society’s bucket list. And today we find that the subject of gay marriage has finally been resolved thanks to yesterday’s pronouncement that Barbara Bush, Bush43’s daughter, has come out in support of same-sex marriage! Hooray!

OK … I jest.

You’ll find no dog here in that fight. I do not have an opinion that leans either way. I have no problem with civil gay marriage, so long as the states, which have always retained the responsibility of regulating and recording marriage applications, decide – preferably by legislation, perhaps via sustainable judicial review – to recognize the union. Of course that guarantees several states, most likely those in southern and mid-western regions will never recognize gay marriage on their own. But that’s fine with me. The people in those states have every right to decide in that way. (I won’t get into the ramifications of a potential national constitutional amendment on the issue. )

I also have no problem with gay marriage as a religious observance should particular churches determine that it fits their beliefs. Again, you can start counting grains of sand at the beach while waiting for the Roman Catholic Church to recognize same-sex marriage, but again – it’s their right.

No, this has nothing to do with gay marriage or even Barbara Bush. It has everything to do with the notion that anyone should give a crap one way or the other what Barbara Bush thinks, simply because she is Barbara Bush!

I have had the same reaction to Hollywood types being touted for their views on global warming, the Iraq war, healthcare, etc. And since MOST Hollywood types tend towards liberal views, let me just say the same applies to those celebrity types on the conservative side of debates. I do not – aside from random channel surfing – generally view or listen to talking head opinion shows on either side.

I just never understood the notion, put forth and periodically reinforced by the media, that somehow the opinions and pronouncements of people prominent in the popular culture should carry more weight simply because of their popularity. It’s not the reporting of celebrity utterances that gets me annoyed. It’s the weight that the opinion is given in the way it is conveyed. Do I really have to see it reported as BREAKING NEWS?!? How long will I have to glimpse it as a news crawl along the bottom edge of the TV screen?

The opinion means nothing to me. Why? Because she has no weight in the fight.

Now had it been Bush43 himself or – better yet – Dick Cheney providing us this nugget of social commentary, more people in this country would – and probably should – sit up a bit straighter and take notice. Not because they know better, they claim no higher ground than anyone else. But because of their weight with moderate and social conservatives, their roles as policy leaders. More authoritative? Yes. But the end of the discussion? Well, not so fast!

Each of us should be able to make up our own minds; express those opinions as Barbara B did; and promote change if we feel it appropriate based on whatever level of education on the subject we pursue.

That last part is the sticky wicket. If enough people made it a point to truly educate themselves on the issues of the day, I imagine touting Barbara B’s opinion on anything important wouldn’t be much of a draw in the media. But the fact that it does has to give one pause.

It’s a scary thought.

Nothing personal, Barb.

Was slavery the only issue in U.S. Civil War?

Posted on January 23, 2011 by Mike Shortall

The following was written as a letter to the editors at The Philadelphia Inquirer in response to several letters (See fifth letter down.) in the past week or so protesting commemorations of The Civil War as “glorifications” of slavery (i.e. commemorations in the southern U.S.).

I really do not understand all the sudden angst over observances related to the American Civil War. I do not understand the insistence on framing the war totally within the context of slavery.  Anyone, who has taken the time to study the development of the American experiment through the 18th and 19th centuries and the origins of the hostilities that broke out in 1861, recognizes that slavery was not the only issue that defined the war.

The American republic had many more issues before it than the horrors of slavery. The questions of states rights, the strength of a centralized federal government, the interests of agrarian vs. industrialized economies, even the success of a Lincoln-led administration were all factors of immense national interest at stake. As such, both the North and the South had legitimate vital interests in the conflict that went beyond the insidious practice of slavery.

Slavery as the only issue related to the war does not explain Lincoln’s own admission that he would have resolved the conflict – if he could – without freeing a single slave. It also does not account for the fact that hundreds of thousands of poor, non-slave owning Southerners fought willingly against the overwhelming advantages of the North. The fact is that hundreds of thousands died in that war with no stake on the issue of slavery.  Many of them unemployed immigrants fighting for the North just for money to survive in a new world.

There is no reason to restrict “glorification” of a preeminent event in American history solely to the issue of slavery. To do so dismisses so much more that can be learned about how the United States stayed a united nation and the experiment continued on its epic journey.

Mike —-

All the angst seems motivated by the fact that the wrong people – Southerners – might want to commemorate an event that was also crucial to the history and development of that region. Not to mention the fact that hundreds of thousands died there also, many of them dirt-poor farmers who did not own and could not afford slaves.

This is so much more about Liberal guilt over American history than it is any attempt to put that event into its proper historical context.