From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Subject: A fresh start.
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:33:04 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

The discussions on this group have fragmented into several threads on the
legality of secession, the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, displays of 
the Confederate Navy Jack etc. I'd like to try to re-focus these discussions
by making a few specific points.

Let me begin by defining two extreme positions that could be taken in the
debate.

Pro-Union:  The United States is, and always was, "one nation, INDIVISIBLE, 
under God, with liberty and justice for all." The Southern secessionists
committed treason by seizing federal property within the borders of the southern
states, resorting to violence in the case of Fort Sumter. They formed a
confederacy and waged war in violation of the US Constitution. President
Abraham Lincoln had no choice but to honor his oath "to preserve and protect the
Constitution" by waging a long and bloody war against these traitors. Since the
primary motivation of this southern treachery was the desire to preserve the
immoral institution of slavery, the North abolished this institution and the
South was justifiably punished. "War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, 
let us give them a full measure of it!"

Pro-Secessionist:  By 1860 the people of the south had become a separate
nationality from the rest of the US, just as the American Colonists had become
a separate people from England in 1776. The people of the north demonstrated
this division by electing the candidate of a regional party to the presidency,
and by enacting local laws which violated Southern interests that were
explicitly protected in provisions of the US Constitution. As a separate
people, the South had the moral right to "break the bands" that held them the
US in the same way that the colonies had broken from England only 84 years
before. In addition to this moral right, they had assured for themselves (from
the beginning of the Union) the legal right to assert their independence at
will, based upon international treaties and the US Constitution itself. By
their immoral conduct of the war, the Northern armies indelibly marked the
Southerners as a people with a separate heritage, who have been held to the
Union against their will by force of arms, but "the South will rise again!"

As a Northerner myself, I feel it's unsafe for me to comment on the extreme
pro-Secessionist position, but I will point out that there is a paradox in the
extreme pro-Union position. If indeed North and South are properly one country,
and Northerners and Southerners are countrymen, then it should be possible for
a Northerner to share, if not sympathy for, at least an understanding of the
opinions and motivations of the hundreds of thousand of non-slave-holding
Southerners who fought for the Confederacy (and their modern-day descendants).
Failure of pro-Unionists to concede even the plausibility of Southern arguments
is essentially as divisive as a Southerner waving the Confederate Jack.

In light of this let me propose the following points as a basis for an
intermediate position:

1) There is a implicit danger that a government formed by revolution can be
destroyed by revolution. In the case of the US, this danger was effectively 
ended though a second war.

2) Nevertheless, our revolutionary heritage from 1776 can still stir the blood
of Americans, north and south. Both sides still believe that "When in the 
course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the 
bands that have connected it to another" that these bands should be dissolved. 
However this principle should not be abused, and in 1860 the aristocrats who
controlled the governments and newspapers in the South acted rashly (and in
contradiction to the pre-war desires of the majorities in these states) in
attempting to lead these states out of the Union.

3) The issues that separated the people of North and South in 1860 were
inescapably related to the enslavement of black people in the South. This
institution has been abolished for over 125 years, and the intervening years
our common experience has bound North and South back together, not just
legally, but in spirit as well.

4) While the protection of the institution of slavery was the motivating factor
in the actions of the aristocrats who dominated the Southern state
governments, the motivations of the majority of southerners who fought for 
their states and their confederacy were such that one can fairly state that
(as they saw it = ATSI):

* Both sides fought for democratic and republican principles ATSI.
* Both sides fought for rights and liberties ATSI.
* Both sides fought to preserve the status quo ATSI.
* Both sides fought to defend their nation ATSI.
* Both sides fought for the principles of the American founding fathers ATSI.
* Both sides fought against despotic and illegal actions by governmental 
officials ATSI.

It is perhaps hard to take this all in (I certainly still have trouble with it) 
that so much harm and suffering could be brought on this country by Americans 
who, on both sides, were acting upon firm convictions that they were fighting
for the right cause. 

5) With the exception of the blacks themselves and a few whites, both sides can
be criticised (from a modern perspective) for holding to racist beliefs.

6) The Civil War proved to be vastly more violent than anyone expected at the
time. This has given us a cautionary example of the dangers of immoderate
actions by government leaders.

7) Both sides in the war had plausible legal arguments to support their
positions, but also both sides clearly violated Federal laws and the US
Constitution in many instances, and committed a number of provocative acts of
questionable legality.

8) The US Constitution and the Federal Government were strengthened and changed
by the war to the point that it is very difficult for modern people to
reconstruct the attitudes toward these institutions that prevailed in 1860.

9) With the abolishment of the (asserted) state powers of secession and
nullification, the US Supreme Court has become the ultimate arbitrator of 
the US Constitution.

IMHO the South had a stronger legal basis for seceding than the North did for
forcing them back into the Union. However, even though it might have been legal
at the time, the power of secession was fundamentally incompatible with a
stable, democratic government. It is tragic that so many Americans died in
correcting this legal flaw, but in 1860 a democratic government was still a 
novel concept. Also offsetting negative consequences of the war, were the end
of the outrageously immoral institution of slavery, and the legal promise (yet
to be  fulfilled) of racial equality.

It is entirely possible that this newsgroup will break out in a flame war
between those who will accept only one of the two extreme positions that were
outlined above. Such a flame war could easily last as long as the original. 
If that happens, I for one refuse to enlist for the duration.

I haven't seen the charter of this newsgroup (could somebody please mail it to
me?), but I have a number of suggestions for topics that I feel would be more
interesting than amateur lawyers arguing past each other about the
Constitution, or inflammatory remarks about flags. Namely, why not try to focus
on the following topics:

* Exchange of information about the history of the war. There were roughly 3
million Americans who wore either the Blue or the Grey. That alone means there
were 3 million stories, not counting the 30 million government officials, 
civilians and slaves who had their lives altered. According to the National
Archives, 50% of present-day Americans have at least one ancestor who fought in
the war. (I enjoyed the posting of the "Letters from a German Soldier".)

* Discussions and recommendations of books on the war. According to my sources, 
more books have been written on the Civil War than all other subjects from
American History combined.

* Information on tracing ancestors and their regimental histories.

* Discussion of how the American Civil War, and the issues involved, relate to
current events, like the break-up of the USSR and Yugoslavia, Bush stacking the
Supreme Court, or anti-abortion/anti-slavery analogies. It seems to me that the
Civil War has suddenly become more relevant, and at the same time modern events
have put the Civil War into a new perspective. 

* Information on Civil War reenacting, historical societies, battlefields, 
historical buildings, good places to buy artifacts, etc.

* Discussion of the military tactics and the "art of war" of the day, and why
this made the Civil War so unusually bloody.

* Possibly even some "what if" speculation. "What if Private Bartow hadn't found
a copy of Lee's marching orders before the battle of Antietam?" "What if Grant
had been shot at Shiloh instead of Albert Sidney Johnston?"  "What if Douglas
had been elected?" etc.

* And what about sharing obscure song lyrics, poems etc. from that era?

Those are my ideas. Flame me if you will, but I'm leaving the country for awhile
so it won't hurt.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan	Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV 	(I'm posting this from a friend's account)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa