Civil War replay revisits familiar questions

The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

When I responded to a Los Angeles Times op-ed last week, I was painfully reminded of how intense censorship has become in America.

It was not a particularly objectionable notation! The article dealt with the recently popularized topic of the American Civil War and its causes. In the author's opinion, there was only one cause, and he used some “out of context” quotes from Abraham Lincoln to make his point. The fact that I took exception showed that any deviation from the narrative was verboten.

Inconvenient facts

Abolition of slavery did not become an official Union war objective until January 1St, 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation was introduced in 1862 and only affected states that had seceded. Slave states that had not seceded were not included in the proclamation. The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to prevent England and France from intervening on behalf of the Confederation. This seemed imminent in the summer of 1862.

Good, bad or indifferent, the fact is the fact. Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He was an “emancipationist”. His presidential campaign urged keeping slavery out of the territories. His Republican Party came from what was initially known as the “Free Soil” party.

Lincoln reminded the more radical elements of his party that slavery was protected by the Constitution. That the president hates the institution is unquestionable. That in 1861 he was not prepared to make it a war objective was based on legalities and realities.

Promote revisionist history

Seemingly objectionable to the censors was to invoke a simple truism: “This Emancipation did not become an object of war until 1863.” Although the abolition movement had existed for more than three or four decades, it was not the primary goal in 1861.

The question is, “Why would anyone accept an exception to an established fact?” Answer: “It's an abrupt departure from the current narrative.”

That slavery is a stain on the nation's history is unquestionable. That its existence in 1861 was inexcusable. They did not say the implications clearly part of the picture. Starting with the 3/5 commitment.

At that time a slave counted as 3/5 of a person. Removing that 3/5 from the mix would cost the South representation in the US House of Representatives and the Electoral College. By 1860, a large majority of immigrants chose to settle in the North, due to the abundance of low-paying factory jobs.

Many states taxed slaves. Louisiana, for example, derived 2/3 of its tax revenue from slave taxes.

Lincoln was aware of these factors. He made clear to Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens that if abolition had been introduced as a war goal in 1861, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri would have joined Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, after Fort Sumter.

Obviously, the censors conclude that these sidebars complicate the conclusion. Presenting the issue only on strictly moral grounds lends credibility to “alt-left” movements such as “Critical Race Theory” and “Wokism.”

Why does it matter…

Eastern industrialists were increasingly frustrated with the South's traditional trade practices with France and Britain. Southern steamships loaded with cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco found they could return with European consumer goods much more affordable than buying them from northern factories.

Instead of making its factories more efficient and cutting its profit margins, the North used its electoral advantage to legislatively level the playing field. Their tool was protective tariffs. Reminding their northern neighbors that the union of the states was voluntary, the South bid them “goodbye.”

The question is, “Why are we afraid of the truth?”

Perhaps because, as with most aspects of a democracy, “it's messy.”

Many consider Abraham Lincoln America's greatest president. Even so, he literally “walked all over the Constitution.” Starting with his suspension of Habeas Corpus. The “Writ of Habeas Corpus” guarantees due process and the right to a speedy trial. For Lincoln, this proved inconvenient. Even worse, it is yet to reset. January 6th boarders can vouch for that!

Lincoln also had an aversion to media that contradicted the government's narrative. Many newspapers were closed, and their editors were later imprisoned during the war. In his thinking, the First Amendment had become a liability.

Lincoln's apologists admit that he “compromised the constitution to save the nation.” This claim may have some merit. But to what extent?

80 years later, Franklin D. Roosevelt championed “Executive Order 9066” which he signed into law on February 19th.th, 1942. The order assigned Japanese Americans to concentration camps. Roosevelt claimed that “it was for his own protection.”

Learning from past mistakes

The inevitable question: “Where do we draw the line?”

The “strict constructionist” answer would be, “You can't draw a line. The Founders were so afraid of an out-of-control federal government that they did everything they could to keep it pure and in place.”

There is January 6th argument The First Amendment gives citizens the right to peaceably assemble. Many of those who did were interned without due process. The lawyers argued that the assembly was not peaceful. Opponents claim that the FBI, working in conjunction with the DC government, “staged the violence.”

When Donald Trump claimed the 2020 election was stolen, he was impeached. While the verdict is still pending, much of the country fears that a conviction could lead to, at best, more conflict. At worst, it could ignite a repeat of 1861!

Many, if not most, Americans hold the media responsible for fueling division in the nation. Instead of objectively presenting both sides of the debate in a factual manner, thanks to very fat wallets, most have comfortably settled into their new roles as “propagandists”.

The good news is that the latter might be the easiest to correct. Measures such as non-renewal of “on-air” broadcast licenses should be considered. Returning to the 1950s standard of 'no internal profit in national news' will cost the industry millions in advertising revenue.” But it will remove corporate interests from the news, which would certainly make it justifiable.

Latest messages from Jeff Willis (see everything)

We have zero tolerance for comments that contain violence, racism, profanity, profanity, doxing, or rude behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it, click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for engaging with us in a fruitful conversation.

JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and good conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-enter your email address for this. The public won't see it and we won't share it.