Civil War Talking Points

People who discuss politics (actual political ideas, not the farce of partisan politics) will sooner or later get drawn into a debate about the War for Southern Independence, more colloquially known as the "Civil War." This is unavoidable because the war lies at the heart of what American life and governance eventually became; those who wish to challenge the status quo must also be prepared to challenge the war.

Indeed, I submit that no one can be a lover of liberty and a fan of Abraham Lincoln, who at best can be said to have ended one (limited and dying) form of slavery in order to establish another (universal and perpetual) one. I find this subject so important that I am devoting a chapter to it in my slow-moving book project. For the time being, I can share this anecdote so that you can prepare yourselves for debate.

A highly-educated friend of mine recently lamented that someone had claimed to her that the war was not about slavery. Her response -- of which she was very proud -- was to point out that slavery was heavily emphasized in the various and sundry articles of secession. But notice the sleight of hand here: she equates secession with the federal government's war to prevent it. This is a non sequitur, for the federal government could have allowed the seceding states to depart in peace rather than make war to prevent them from leaving. A deeper problem is that slavery was legally authorized WITHIN the Union under the Constitution, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court in 1857 and Lincoln himself at his inaugural in 1861 -- Lincoln plainly stated that he had no authority to end slavery where it existed. Therefore, to the extent anyone argues the war was justified to end slavery, this is an admission that the war was unconstitutional, especially considering that the Thirteenth Amendment wasn't passed until the war was already pretty much over.

Which leaves secession as the only remaining justification for the war. There are serious problems with this. For example, the Declaration of Independence was an act of secession; the Constitution itself was an act of secession from the Articles of Confederation; and the federal government has endorsed secession movements around the world -- e.g., Kosovo from Serbia -- and in countries that are not even federations of independent sovereignties such as we are. Thomas Jefferson himself had no trouble saying the following:    
"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"

We have good cause to discuss these things, for secession is perhaps our only hope of escaping the clutches of a lawless, runaway government. Secession must be legitimized in enough people's minds to make this happen, and the first stop on this journey is tearing down the pagan idol of Abraham Lincoln (a self-proclaimed atheist who worshiped power over truth).