Freedom of Speech - A Few Thoughts

A few couplets about freedom of speech:

Try to be kind.
• Kind people try not to offend others.
• Just because it is true does not mean it must be said.

Say what must be said.
• Giving offense sometimes is unavoidable.
• When a truth must be spoken, it is irrelevant that some may find it offensive.

Speaking truth is more important than worry about how it will be received.
• Some portray themselves as offended in order to manipulate others. These are tyrants and should be given no consideration.
• Fear of giving offense must never constrain legitimate freedom of expression.

Tolerate differences, reject lies.
• Differences of opinion are normal.  In a free society, we respect differences of opinion. 
• Misrepresentations of fact are a threat to freedom and must be exposed.  When a result of ignorance, they must be corrected.  When a result of deception, they must be condemned.

'Freedom of Speech'
from the Four Freedoms series
by Norman Rockwell (1943)

"The Truth Will Set You Free."

Gryphem

The Greatest Hope

He lived.  He died.  He returned to life.

His humanity, his wisdom, his conquest of death promise deliverance and forever life.

The one who rose again spoke of love, forgiveness, second chances, and new life. 

He said he came to live among us so that all who trust in him might have life that is both abundant and everlasting.

This is not about dogma.  This is about reality.  This is about your life.

Celebrate the glory and hope of the rising of Yeshua.  Live in the love and life that it represents.

Have a blessed Resurrection Day.

The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere

Welcome, Gryphem community, to a significant date of commemoration in American history, April 18th.

In the many years I had the privilege to teach U.S. History and Literature, every single April 18th was marked by the reading of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem, “Paul Revere’s Ride.” This poem, although not perfectly accurate in a historical sense, nevertheless captures feelings, images, emotions, a sense of wonder and significance concerning the events that triggered the American Revolution.

If you listen actively and imaginatively to this tale, you will experience the essence of poetry, startling imagery, and an important seminal event in the origins of the American nation. Allow yourself to become immersed in the story of a man, a time and a place, and a mission with significance far beyond this narrative. A few things to notice:
• The “hardly a man is now alive” comment in the first stanza. The poem was written in 1860, 85 years after the event.
• The imagery of the British ship in the harbor before the rising moon.
• The description of the churchyard as an encampment of the dead.
• The symbolism of the spark from the hoof of Paul Revere’s horse, and the metaphors of spark and rider.
• The metaphor of the buildings as spectators aghast at the violence about to be unleashed.
• The irony of the one “safe and asleep in his bed, who at the bridge would be first to fall.”
• In the last stanza, the drawing of an eternal hope from a single night’s event.

If you prefer to read the TEXT (courtesy www.eserver.org), click here.
If you prefer to hear the AUDIO (courtesy Spiders House Audio), click on the embedded content below.
In either case, the IMAGES will be in your mind.

And now - “Paul Revere’s Ride” by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.



In your hour of darkness and peril and need, may you always remember with hope the heroic ride of Paul Revere.

- Gryphem

Micromanagement and Fascism

With gratitude to columnist Max Barry, I reprint the first few lines of his column entitled “Why I Fled the Office Cubicle” of April 15, 2011. You can read his entire column at: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/15/barry.cubicle.living/index.html?hpt=C2.

Please read his comments, then continue on for a few follow-on remarks.
- - - - - - - - - -

“There are two types of employee: people and human resources. It's easy to tell which one you are. If your boss says, ‘Todd, please have your team reach a final decision,’ you're a person. If she says, ‘Todd, please organize a team meeting, and because it's lunchtime remember you should supply food, and please cut the breads or sandwiches into either halves or quarters, to discourage over-eating, and remember that crumbs and spills attract uninvited guests,’ you're a human resource…

“The difference between people and human resources is that people have brains. People don't need a company policy on how to ascend stairs… People can figure that out for themselves. Human resources, on the other hand, are dumb as a box of hammers. They need everything spelled out.”
- - - - - - - - - -

There it is. In the world of cubicles, you have directions that tell you everything from how to disengage from a conversation to how to use a revolving door. Do you really need those directions? In the world of legal oblige you have a warning on your coffee cup telling you it’s hot. Do you really need that warning? In the classroom, teachers and students have “essential learning requirements” to tell them what to learn, and when, and how. Do they really need them? The correct response, in case you’ve become too intimidated by the forces of micromanagement to answer, is “No.”

If you don’t really need all that micromanagement, why do the micromanagers foist it upon you? They micromanage you because they want control. Whether they do or do not believe you are capable of surviving on your own, they want to manage your effort and energy, direct your thoughts and opinions. They are not interested in your ideas or motives. They do not respect you as a person. They do not value your independence. They are interested in maintaining their own power base, which includes you. You as a resource, of course, not as a competent, autonomous individual.

The micromanagement rules don’t apply to upper leadership, because they are in the power position, perceived to have the ability to think for themselves. The ordinary people, the minions, are perceived – or depicted - as incapable of critical thinking. That is why they must be told, directed, led, instructed to the tiniest detail. Micromanagement is born of arrogance.

“It helps when the little people
understand you’re simply
better than they are.”

Micromanagement leads to the division of humanity into people and underlings. In an office environment, the minions become human resources (as opposed to management). In a legal environment, the minions become plaintiffs (as opposed to counsel and judges). In an economic environment, the minions are known as consumers (as opposed to ‘the brand’). In the public schools, the minions include both teachers and students (as opposed to administrators and legislators).

You can be sure that this increasing trend throughout our society to micromanage the masses is leading to some undesirable side effects.
       * It is creating a mindset in which ordinary people are being taught that their ideas don’t matter and they cannot make a difference.  Only the ideas of the leaders and the organization matter. 
       * It is creating a mindset in which ordinary people are learning to wait to be told what to do rather than taking initiative.  
       * It is creating a mindset in which individuals assume no personal responsibility for their own actions because they are accustomed to someone else being responsible for them. 
       * It is creating an attitude among the leadership at various levels that “we” (leaders) know best and ordinary folks are too stupid to survive unless we explain to them what they must do, how they must act, what they must think.

This attitude of ineqality is dividing us into two distinct groups – those who get to set the agenda, define the tasks, direct the effort, and make the decisions, and the peasants who do what they’re told. This intellectual elitism is setting the stage for fascism.

Benito Mussolini & Friend, 1925

Of course, I might be wrong. I am only a minion, after all.

- Gryphem
- - - - - - - - - -

An earlier Gryphem post also addressed this topic. You can find it at: http://gryphem.blogspot.com/2011/03/micromanagement-and-ruse-of-superiority.html.

The Civil War - Part Three

This is the third part of a three-part post on the Civil War, presented on the 150th anniversary of the start of that deadly conflict. It would be best to read Parts One and Two before reading this post.
Part One discussed the question, “What was the main issue over which the war was fought?” Part Two addressed the question, “Which side was correct on the issues?” Part Three (this part) will attempt to answer the questions, “Based on moral considerations, which side should have won?” and “Why has public opinion developed as it has?”

Based on moral considerations, which side should have won?

The Indefensible Issue of Slavery

Because the states’ rights issue coalesced around the issue of slavery, the legal and moral factors get all mixed up. Was the Confederacy correct on the issue of states’ rights? Yes. Was the Confederacy correct on the issue of slavery? Absolutely not.

The fact is, the Confederacy was correct in asserting states’ rights. But – and here is the key point – they were attempting to use one constitutional right to contravene others. The attempt to use the Tenth Amendment to perpetuate slavery was a legal and moral abomination. Slavery itself, although recognized in the Constitution as a matter of political necessity in 1788, was not in alignment with the spirit of the Constitution, not compatible with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, not in compliance with the Bill of Rights.

The Framers of the Constitution knew that forcing the issue of abolition in 1788 would have broken the Constitutional Convention and likely would have split the union at that early date. In order to avoid breaking the union, they created a constitution that accepted the current reality of slavery but did seem to imply its ultimate end and provided for the abolition of the slave trade within 20 years. This gave the new nation one generation t resolve the problem. Unfortunately, the problem did not decrease with time.

Nevertheless, slavery always had been at odds with American ideals and stated values. Slavery always had been a national hypocrisy, a stain on the national character, a morally unjustifiable aberration. Slavery had been envisioned by many of the Founding Fathers as gradually disappearing over a generation or two. Not even the correct assertion of states’ rights could morally justify the continued existence of slavery. The Confederacy, because of its defense of an institution of extreme inequality and injustice, was in a morally indefensible position.

The Principle of States’ Rights – Misapplied

The Confederacy has done immense damage to the liberty-affirming principle of limited government by applying those legitimate principles in support of an unjust, indefensible institution. The Confederacy tried to affirm their own right while denying the rights of the enslaved among them. A society, a government based upon institutional inequality, has no ethical basis. The Confederacy, honorable in the matters of limited government and in certain matters of honor and heritage, was morally damned by its affirmation of inequality and dedication to the denial of human rights.

The Historical Fallout of a Confederate Victory

On a more practical level, it is also good that the Union was victorious in the Civil War because of the political and military alternatives that would have followed a Confederate victory. Even if the Confederacy had rejected the hypocrisy of slavery, the division of the United States into two or three or more nations would have been disastrous. Inevitably those nations would have been sometimes antagonistic toward one another, likely forming alliances, engaging in intermittent conflict. The environment of fractured national identity, conflict, and perpetual distrust would have likely prevented the prosperity that the United States enjoyed and diminished the prestige and power the United States subsequently wielded.

Consider the timeline. The First World War began less than 50 years after the American Civil War. The Second World War began roughly 75 years after the American Civil War. The Soviet Union emerged as a superpower only a few years later. What would have become of the rest of the world if the United States of America (as we know it) had not existed? How would the World Wars and the Cold War have resolved if North America was a collection of small warring nations? What would have become even of the North Americans, eventually? Quite apart from the issue of slavery, or the ideal of states’ rights, what would the world look like today if the Confederacy had succeeded in fracturing the American nation? Scary thoughts. President Lincoln’s ultimate goal, the preservation of the Union, may have been more critical to the future of the human race than even he realized.

Why has public opinion developed as it has?

The easy way out of this question is the old truism, “History is written by the winners.” But that old truism is insufficient to explain the continuing conflicted legacy the Civil War still holds over our collective consciousness. Here are some thoughts about what we revere and revile, and why.

Today, Everyone Understands the Injustice of Slavery

The most widespread correlation in the public mind is between the Confederacy and the institution of slavery. That is the single most important reason the Old South is held in disdain and the Union is held in highest regard. The American people of the 20th and 21st centuries despise the slavery they associate with the south. They recognize the injustice and hypocrisy of the slaveholding system.

Few Americans, on the other hand, have taken the time or invested the effort to really understand the states’ rights debate. However, nearly all Americans understand the slavery issue. Start with the 42 million Americans who are ethnic African-Americans. Add the significantly larger block of ethnically diverse Americans understand what it means to be marginalized or exploited because of race or ethnicity. Add the mainstream Americans who have a personal commitment to freedom, human dignity, and equality. That adds up to a huge majority of Americans who despise the Confederacy for defending the institution of slavery.

Many hear that the Confederacy advocated states’ rights and immediately think that states’ rights are a bad thing – like the slavery they already associate with the Confederacy. Because they so despise the Confederate attempt to justify and extend slavery, they immediately conclude that everything about the Confederacy (and by extension, antebellum southern culture) must be rotten at the core.

Room to Admire Some Confederate Values

All things Confederate are not necessarily evil. Much about antebellum culture and society was admirable. The concept of honor, the graciousness, the dedication of southerners to managing their own affairs – all these include an element of valor. There was a fatal flaw at the middle of it all, in the form of slavery and racism.

There are a few groups today who admire and respect their Confederate heritage. It is possible to believe in some Confederate values while rejecting the racism that coexisted with those values. They use the motto, “Heritage, not Hate.” And their belief in the good things about their Confederate heritage is morally defensible and may indeed be completely free of racism. They shouldn’t expect most people to understand, though.

The Influence of Lincoln

Most educated Americans will concede that President Lincoln may have assumed more power than the Constitution allowed. But they will argue that he did so out of necessity and for a higher purpose. So, although Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to prevent the state of Maryland from seceding, it was morally justifiable. Although he said he would end slavery or keep slavery or maintain the status quo in order to preserve the union, he did the right thing and accomplished both.

In fact, without President Abraham Lincoln, the Confederacy would have achieved independence. Rarely has one person so influenced the course of history. Lincoln seemed to spur the Union on to victory in spite of itself, almost by sheer force of his will.

The American people, even those who otherwise feel an affinity for the Confederate cause, also admire the unique and almost superhuman qualities of President Lincoln – his honesty, his dedication to the cause, his martyrdom. The Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC is the closest thing to a shrine that our American government has erected.

Conclusion

The Confederate States of America never achieved independence, and that is all to the good because of the fatal flaw of slavery, and also because of the draconian consequences that would have followed the dissolution of the Union.

That is not to say the Confederacy was wrong about everything. The Confederacy and southern society has some redeeming qualities, but the horror of their defense of slavery overwhelms all other considerations.

States’ rights was a valid Constitutional concept which had the misfortune to be misapplied to an evil cause. Although some attempted to use the concept to defend their indefensible practices, states’ rights remains a valid Constitutional concept, when applied with honesty and integrity.

It is time for the United States of America to divorce the concept of states’ rights from the cause that misappropriated it a century and a half ago. Following so many years of a federal government growing stronger, so many years of the erosion of a constitutional balance of power, perhaps it is time to revisit the validity of states’ rights as a means to restore balance to a federal government grown powerful enough to endanger the liberty of all Americans.

Perhaps, in an odd twist of fate, it is time to revisit the potential role of states’ rights as a means to stop oppression and prevent undemocratic forces operating behind the scenes of our 2011 federal government.

Last Words
 

There are uncomfortable parallels between 1861 and 2011. In 1861 each side had valid points and indefensible positions. In 1861 each side demonized the other. The whole truth was not to be found in either the secessionist or the abolitionist camp. Most Americans today would argue that the need to end slavery was a greater imperative than keeping the federal government from getting out of control. But couldn’t an intelligent, well-meaning, well-informed populace have done both, and perhaps prevented a terrible war in the process? Although it is beyond the scope of this post, I think so.

The Civil War was a time of national crisis perpetuated by disrespect for human life. It resulted in 600,000 dead on both sides. Any means at our disposal which might tend to increase respect and honest communication among all Americans, which might tend to unify us in support of the objective of ensuring freedom and human rights for all is worth looking into.

I hope everyone who reads this will take a few moments to remember the past, and consider how we may avoid repeating the same mistakes. Best wishes.

- Gryphem

- - - - - - - - - -

Suggestions for additional online reading

These two quality opinion pieces both appeared on CNN.com on April 12, 2011. They support the opinions of Gryphem in some matters, and contradict Gryphem in others, but they are definitely worth reading for one who wants to understand more about the causes of the Civil War.

"Civil War's Dirty Secret about Slavery"
by James DeWolf Perry and Katrina Browne
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/12/perry.browne.civil.war/index/html?hpt=sbin
Overview: The South's noble resistance, and the North's moral crusade to end slavery are myths. Both the North and South were complicit in slavery and loath to end it.

"The Civil War was a Choice"
by David Goldfield
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/12/goldfield.civil.war/index.html?hpt=sbin
Overview: The Civil War was America's greatest political failure. Americans went to war with each other because the political system could not contain the issue of slavery. The war need not have been the only route to liberation. Other slaveholding nations found other ways.

The Civil War - Part Two

This is the second part of a three-part post on the Civil War, presented on the 150th anniversary of the start of that deadly conflict. It would be best to read Part One before reading this post.

Part One discussed the question, “What was the main issue over which the war was fought?” Part Two (this part) will address the question, “Which side was correct on the issues?” Part Three will attempt to answer the questions, “Based on moral considerations, which side should have won?” and “Why has public opinion developed as it has?”

Which side was correct on the issues?

With appropriate respect for Federalists including Madison (whom I admire) and Marshall (who is a relative), I believe that on the issue of states’ rights, the confederate perspective was correct. Suspend your arguments about slavery for a moment, and think about ordinary matters of law and governance.

Where the Confederacy was Right: States’ Rights

The United States Constitution was clearly created by a voluntary association of independent entities. It is not reasonable to assume that because an entity voluntarily associates itself with others in common cause that the association must endure, irrevocable for all time. No, what can be created voluntarily can be dissolved voluntarily.

The Constitution itself, although silent on the matter of secession, clearly places the states in the power position. Hear what the Constitution itself says about the relative power of states and federal government.  The Tenth Amendment is quoted in its entirety: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

It should be obvious to the non-partisan reader that the powers of the federal government were intended to be limited in scope and constrained by the powers of the states and the citizens as a whole.

Freedom is better served when government is closer to, and subject to closer scrutiny by the people. In other words, freedom is better served when government occurs mainly at the state or local level as opposed to the national level. So the Confederacy was correct about the issue of states’ rights.

Where the Confederacy was Wrong

Unfortunately, the Confederacy chose to apply a valid principle to an untenable position. Surely no one would argue that the states should have the right to legalize slavery? But in fact, that is precisely what the Confederacy asserted, although that position was and is indefensible.

The primary flaw of southern slaveholding society was an intense and largely immutable caste system which frequently constrained individual liberty even for ordinary citizens. But grafted onto this genteel white society, and underpinning its economy, was a centuries-old system of black slavery which regarded slaves as less than human.

Southern slavery, sometimes brutal, sometimes benign, degraded all involved. The slave was degraded by oppression, abuse, and denial of human rights. The slaveholders, although they would not have recognized it, degraded themselves by their vile, hypocritical, duplicitous oppression of those unable to resist. The slave received a bit of respect only insofar as he or she worked hard and complied with the status quo. The slaveholder received only the respect he could create by force or intimidation. In its denial of human rights, the southern slaveholding culture was essentially corrupt.

It is important to understand that the reason for the war changed significantly in the midst of the conflict. In the beginning, although the issue of slavery was definitely in the public eye, most of the discussion centered around who got to decide such matters. The focus was where the power of government was centered – in effect, the focus was states’ rights. But a couple of years into the war, President Lincoln saw an opportunity to seize the moral high ground and reorient public perception about the conflict. The Emancipation Proclamation, issued in late 1862 and effective at the beginning of 1863, began the process of freeing the slaves. Contrary to popular belief, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all the slaves, but it did begin the process. Once issued, it unleashed the moral force of abolitionism. After the proclamation, the Civil War was less a conflict between competing authorities, and more a righteous crusade to end evil oppression.

Other Areas Where the Southern Culture was Right

We shouldn’t make the mistake of oversimplifying. Although the institution of slavery is completely indefensible, southern culture did have some merits.

Southern society was a traditional society based on honor, valor, and commitment. The mainstream culture of the antebellum (pre-war) south was characterized by respect, graciousness, and other noble virtues. In many ways it was an admirable society.

In some circles, even now, Confederate persons and values are still remembered as honorable. The truth is, flawed though it might have been, the American south was not completely evil. There were admirable qualities in southern culture. It was neither the cruel world of constant torture and humiliation depicted in Uncle Tom’s Cabin nor the benign society of Uncle Remus.

Southern culture and Confederate values emphasized honor, commitment, dedication to a cause. Despite the stain of slavery, many individual Confederates were persons of compassion and honor. Their courage and valor were sometimes remarkable, and are rightly remembered with admiration.

I never said making these distinctions would be easy.

Was Slavery on the way Out, Anyway?

Here is an observation that is largely beside-the-point from a historical perspective, but intriguing from an ethical perspective. There were several Confederate leaders who took the Confederate side because they believed in states’ rights, or because their home state seceded, who nevertheless were not supporters of the institution of slavery. Foremost among them was General Robert E. Lee. Although he did own slaves himself, Lee nevertheless saw the end of slavery coming.

As a matter of fact, nations around the world had been ending slavery for many decades. In the 1860s most civilized nations viewed slavery as a throwback to a more barbaric time.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can say with some confidence that slavery would have ended within a generation or two even if the south had won the war. It was an irresistible movement of human history. Although vestiges of slaveholding remained until the 1930s in China, and perhaps the 1960s in Arabia and North Africa, slavery as a legal institution was grinding to a halt by the late 1800s. Of course, no one could have known this for certain in 1861.

States’ Rights does not mean Oppression – Slavery means Oppression

In the course of researching this post I came across more than one 21st century African-American who was angry because his ancestors had been enslaved.  Because that enslavement had been defended by an appeal to states' rights, these descendants were antagonistic not only to the institution of slavery, but also to the very concept of states' rights.  This situation was compounded by the fact that in the 20th century many African-Americans continued to suffer oppression under Jim Crow laws and discriminatory policies that were defended by a misapplied appeal to states’ rights. It is understandable that many today believe that “states’ rights” is a code word for racism and oppression of African-Americans.

I understand why they are angry, and I am angry along with them. Using any argument to attempt to justify oppression was and is an abomination. Although it was misapplied in the past, the concept of “states’ rights” cannot rationally justify oppression. The use of “states’ rights” to rationalize oppression was and is a perversion of what states’ right is really all about. In truth, there is no justification for either slavery or racist oppression.

It is to our benefit today to separate the two concepts. We must move beyond the negative emotional reaction we may have to “states’ rights” because the truth is (and this is more true today than ever before) states’ rights, properly understood, may just as easily prevent oppression as aid it.

[To be continued…]

The Civil War – Part One

The American Civil War began 150 years ago today, April 12, 1861. On that day, Confederate forces fired upon the U.S. garrison at Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, in the state of South Carolina. Many books have been written on how circumstances reached such a point that Americans would fire upon other Americans. Many more books have been written about the four years of warfare that followed.

This three-part post doesn’t attempt to make sense of the entire Civil War episode of American history. It won’t analyze military events. With the except of one brief segment, it won’t speculate on “what if?” questions. This post will attempt to answer a few related questions. The first will require some discussion, and is the subject of Part One:

(1) What was the main issue over which the war was fought?

Responses to other questions will appear in Parts Two and Three:

(2) Which side was correct on the issues?
(3) Based on moral considerations, which side should have won?
(4) Why has public opinion developed as it has?

This post includes fact and reasoned opinion, intertwined. If you disagree with the assertions or conclusions that follow, explain why and submit your comments back to this blog. If they have merit, I will concede your points.

What was the main issue over which the war was fought?

You will hear many over the past century-and-a-half claim that the motivating cause of the Civil War was slavery. They are not correct. Admittedly, it does look like slavery was the cause of the war, if you don’t look too closely. Slavery was indeed the issue around which the two sides coalesced, and the end of slavery was an important result of the war. The root issue of the conflict, though, was not whether or not slavery was permissible. The real issue was who had the power to decide whether slavery was permissible.

States’ Rights - Two Different Perspectives

This may seem like splitting hairs, but the distinction is important. Leave the issue of slavery for a moment and think about these observations. The states of the north (the Union) and the south (the Confederacy) had a different concept of the very nature of the Union.

In the north (the Union) the opinion was that when the various states had joined together in common cause in the American Revolution, and later in the Constitutional Convention, they had created a new entity, a nation that was bigger and greater than any of the component parts (the States) that created it. This view is related to that of the Federalist Party of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and John Marshall in the early 1800s. The states were considered subordinate to the federal government.

In the south (the Confederacy) the individual states were considered the creators of the federal government. The opinion was that the states had voluntarily created the federal government, and the federal government existed at the pleasure of the states that had created it. Accordingly, if a state disagreed with a federal law, then that state could nullify, or cancel, that law. If a state no longer felt that remaining in the Union was in its own best interests, then that state had the right to secede, or leave, the Union and set itself up as an independent nation. In fact, the word “state” was then and remains today a synonym for the word “nation.” This view is similar to that of the Democratic party of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. The United States was seen as a sort of voluntary alliance.

It may be surprising today, a century and a half later, when our federal government has become so much more powerful than the individual states, but before the Civil War, the second view was more common. Notice this clue from public dialogue. Today, and for more than a century, those who speak about this nation might say, “The United States is….” But before the war, those who spoke about this nation would say, “The United States are…”

Likewise, the Union name for the war, the “Civil War,” has become the accepted term. “Civil War” implies a conflict between factions within a single nation. But consider the term used in the Confederacy to name the war, a term which endured in common use for a century after the war’s end. Southerners called the conflict the “War Between the States.” This term implies a war between different nations, not among a single nation, as southerners believed the “States” of the “United States” were actually separate nations.

The most concrete evidence that the war was primarily about states’ rights rather than slavery is this simple fact. Four slave states (Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland) chose not to secede. They remained slaveholding states, but stayed within the Union.

Why do So Many Think the Main Issue was Slavery?

If the war was about states’ rights, why do so many think it was about slavery? Because that is the issue over which the two competing ideas came to conflict.

The document which created the new nation, the Declaration of Independence, declared that “all men are created equal.” This was not a new idea. Staging a revolution on that premise, and creating a new nation dedicated to it… That was something new. But the new nation failed to live up to its own high ideals. Even as patriots fought for American freedom, some Americans continued to own slaves. This extreme double standard was recognized from the start as a problem, but the new nation was unable to solve it right away. The new nation was too busy gaining its independence in a war with the most powerful country on Earth. Many patriots, including John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, realized that the issue of slavery would have to be solved eventually. But their efforts were spent in creating the new nation, and the people of their generation did not have the means to solve the problem of slavery. If they had tried, the entire American nation would have failed. The existence of slavery was accepted as the status quo in the Constitution, although those opposed to slavery did manage to insert into the Constitution a prohibition against the slave trade. In any event, the problem of slavery was left for another generation to solve.

Over the next few generations many attempts were made to solve the slavery problem. As time passed, it became more and more a regional issue. Slavery, once legal in all thirteen colonies, was outlawed by the northern states. This was partly a moral decision, but it was also an economic one. In the north, factories were common and farms were small. Slavery was economically unnecessary. In the south, where plantations formed the core of the economy, slavery was an economic necessity.

The United States was a nation that was half slave-owning, and half free. Even though racist attitudes were common in all parts of the nation, a person of African descent in the north had most of the same essential liberties as persons of European descent.  Well, they did until 1857 at least, when the Supreme Court rendered the worst verdict in its history in the "Dred Scott" case.  In the south, though, most persons of African descent were enslaved, deprived of the rights delineated in the Declaration of Independence ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”), owned.

Animosity between the regions grew more and more heated. Compromises kept the nation about equally divided. Those opposed to slavery, called “abolitionists,” called for slavery to be eliminated completely. The abolitionists, as you might expect, tended to live mostly in the northern “free” states. Southerners rejected their calls to abolish slavery as meddling in matters that were none of their business. They maintained that the institution of slavery was their particular cultural and economic right. (“Our peculiar institution,” one called it.) Southerners held that the federal government had no business attempting to influence the issue. They contended that whether the institution of slavery was permitted or not was a question for each individual state to decide.

Northerners disagreed. Whether motivated by old Federalist sympathies, or international pressure to end slavery (it had been outlawed in British Canada and Mexico for decades), or the abolitionists, or a sense of moral indignation, they overwhelmingly wanted slavery to end.

In the end, it came to war. The thing that caused the war was whether states or the federal government had the final say in matters of governance. The issue on which they divided was slavery.

[To be continued…]

An Honest Assessment of Our Future

This is an honest assessment of our American future.  Fair warning: it is not pretty. I wish I could be as optimistic as Reagan was in tough times 30 years ago, but I can't.  I hope my concerns are exaggerated, but I must write what I really think because I have always valued truth and reality more than that which appeases and feels good but is false. So beginning with the social symptom of the moment and diagnosing long-term implications in a concise commentary, this is what I think about our long-term prospects.

At this time, the United States government is heading full speed toward a shutdown. The US Congress has failed for over six months now to pass a budget for fiscal year 2011, which is half-over. Shutdowns have loomed several times over the past few months, but this time it looks serious.
Should this happen? The answer depends upon your point of view and who you hold accountable for the current mess. Personally, I believe someone has to stand up and say ‘Enough!’ Enough spending money we don’t have. Enough living on credit – the bills are coming due. Personally, I believe those who are forcing the issue are patriots defending our freedom no less than if they were on the battlefield.

But how did it come to this? How did one Congress after another, led by both Democrats and Republicans, keep spending us into this massive whirlpool of debt? However it came to be, it is a problem which threatens our freedom, and it has to be addressed. So, do I think this should happen? If necessary to stop the headlong charge toward economic oblivion, yes. But it never should have come to this.

With ongoing fiscal irresponsibility, the US Congress has and is accomplishing two things. In the first place, the budget makers of Congress (supported in their irresponsibility by the Executive) are running the country full speed toward economic perdition. What no nation has ever been able to do militarily, defeat the United States, is going to be accomplished when the US Congress runs the nation into default and bankruptcy. In that situation we will either hand over the keys of the republic to the people we owe money, or we will forsake our dedication to freedom, nationalize our assets, establish a new authoritarian order, and prepare to defend ourselves, alone among the community of nations.

In the second place, less draconian but more certain, the irresponsibility of the Congress is destroying the faith of the people in their government, in their very system of government. We are learning that Congress cannot be trusted to do the right thing with our national finances, that elected representatives all will ultimately take the easy way out, that our ‘representatives’ do not have our best interests at heart but care most about their own wellbeing and power. Even if we escape bankruptcy, the people of this nation and the world are losing faith in the America we used to know. The American government is proving untrustworthy to her own people. The people are beginning to lose sight of the America that was once the bright hope of humanity. Now America’s leaders, far from inspiring the world, are mostly thought of as just another greedy, corrupt bunch trying to make a buck and stay in power.

In short, the greed and incompetence of Congresses past and present is a cancer on the American dream of liberty and prosperity. The failure is not in the system of representative democracy. The American system of government by the people through their elected representatives worked well for about 160 years. If you choose to discount the period before the Civil War when not all Americans were free, it still worked well for a century. The fault is not in the system. It is partially the failure of those we elected. It is more a failure of judgment, ethics, and will among the citizens who clamor more and more every election cycle to get something for nothing.

The Roman Republic lasted just under five centuries before it became a dictatorship under Caesar, although the Roman Empire maintained power and influence if not individual freedom for another four centuries.* The British Empire lasted just over three centuries before the worldwide empire collapsed back to just the British Isles, but at least they preserved their own freedom.

The great American experiment is a little more than two centuries old, although the United States has been a world power for only a bit over one century. Not a bad run, I suppose, but I hoped it would last longer.

Back to the present situation. It is still possible at this moment that a government shutdown will be avoided. If so, the points above are in no way diminished. It never should have come to this. If the shutdown does happen, I do not believe it will be immediately catastrophic. We’ll get through it with a minimum of inconvenience. Each side will blame the other for being unwilling to do the right thing. Ultimately a budget will be passed. But this shutdown, threatened or real, nevertheless represents the latest and most significant flare-up of the cancer of greed, selfishness, and political intolerance that continues to erode our national character.

The decline of the American Republic has been underway for some time. Reversing the process now would take a miracle. The miracle would need to be equal parts fiscal restraint and rebirth of a national community of virtue (see Montesquieu**). Pray for the miracle. Do what you can to bring it about. Be prepared for whatever may come. Pray.
- - - - - - - - - -

* For more on the comparison between our America and ancient Rome, see the article, “U.S. Decline, Sloth Look a Lot Like End of Rome” at www.thefinancialphysician.com/blog/?p=2550
- - - - - - - - - -

** Montesquieu – A French philosopher of the 18th century who expressed many of the principles used to establish the United States government. He wrote that a republic of free persons must be characterized by virtue if it is to survive.
- - - - - - - - - -

Postscript:
For an outstanding assessment of the government shutdown fiasco, take a look at Ruben Navarrette's editorial of April 7 on CNN.com at www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/07/navarrette.debt.burden/index.html?hpt=Sbin#.
- - - - - - - - - -

A closing thought from a principled patriot:

“A people that values its privileges

above its principles soon loses both.”

--Dwight Eisenhower

The Corporate Lies of Transocean

And now a word from the “Other” reality – the one in which ivory tower intellectuals, political campaign strategists, corporate executives, and Wall Street brokers dwell. This story certainly didn’t originate in our shared reality.

First, the comment, quoted from <veracitystew.com/2011/04/04/gulf-oil-spills-transocean-best-year-ever/>:
“In a perfect example of the massive disconnect between corporate greed and responsibility, Transocean, Ltd., the offshore drilling contractor whose faulty rig, the Deepwater Horizon, exploded last April… had, according to securities filings obtained by the Wall Street Journal, their “best year in safety performance.”

What?  Did the owners of the Transocean Deepwater Horizon just claim 2010 as their best safety year ever? Would that be the same year in which their rig blew up, killed eleven people, and dumped hundreds of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico?

Yes.  In the artificial, blustery, dishonest, world of corporate spin, someone at Transocean concluded either that 2010 was a good year for safety, or that they could dupe foolish mortals like you and me and the SEC and their stockholders into believing that 2010 was a good year for safety.

If 2010 was a good year, I'd hate to see a bad year.  Seriously, either they are stupid, or they are dishonest and condescending, and they think we are stupid. Take your choice.

To their dismay, Transocean soon realized that the target audience for that “best year ever” comment isn’t buying it. So what did the corporate spin doctors at Transocean do? Did they admit their mistake? Did they come clean? Or did they decide that they are so much smarter than you and me that they can lie through their teeth and force us to believe them?

With appreciation to <www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/04/gulf.spill.bonuses/index.html?hpt=P1&iref=NS1#>, here is Transocean’s second comment. Read it closely:
“The owner of the Gulf of Mexico oil rig that exploded last year, killing 11 workers and leading to what has been called the worst oil spill ever, said Monday that calling 2010 its ‘best year’ in safety ‘may have been insensitive’.”

Wow. Even when confronted with the absurdity of their previous statement, Transocean does not actually admit that they were wrong or dishonest. Instead, they tell us about sensitivity.

In the first place, they are off-topic. They do not respond to the safety issue, but refocus on the matter of how the message was presented. The plan: distract the public from the real issue by providing another “lightning rod” topic, sensitivity.

In the second place, note the wording. Not only did they not admit they had a horrible safety year, they also didn’t really admit their substitute offense, as they only “may have been” insensitive. Does it get any more arrogant than that?

The intent of this exercise in hypocrisy is to tacitly deny any wrongdoing while concurrently changing our focus from the oil spill to the way they presented their message.

Let’s move beyond literal words to the more subtle matter of implications. What is the implied message in the Transocean response?

The implication of the instantaneous refocus on the method of presentation (as opposed to the facts concerning safety) is that the facts themselves are so obviously true that we do not need to concern ourselves with them. Although Transocean “may have been insensitive” when they reminded us about their great safety record, they imply by their dismissal of the accusation that they obviously were speaking the truth.

The problem, as redefined by Transocean, is not that pesky little oil spill incident or their safety record. The problem is not even that they blatantly lied to the world about their safety record. No, the problem, IF there was any at all, was that they “may have been” insensitive, and that people may have misunderstood their pride in a commendable safety accomplishment.

Notice this subtle implication also. Not only is the substitute offense (insensitivity) minor and unworthy of further consideration, but the public is responsible (at least in part) for making the mistake of misunderstanding.

This spin is ingenious – or would be if the public accepted it. It distracts from the real issue, denies any wrong intent in the substitute issue, and implies that the corporation has been wronged by people who misunderstood their honorable motives.

Does anyone need a towel to cry into? I know you are all feeling bad for doubting them.

Do they really think you are stupid?  Yes, they do.  Need more evidence?  Consider the quote from the Transocean statement to the SEC:
"Notwithstanding the tragic loss of life in the Gulf of Mexico, we achieved an exemplary statistical safety record as measured by our total recordable incident rate and total potential severity rate. As measured by these standards, we recorded the best year in safety performance in our company's history."

Well, there it is, in undeniable terms.  Statistics confirm Transocean's exemplary safety record.  I am so relieved.  I thought that oil spill had been a disaster, but I must have been mistaken because they MEASURED it, and numbers don't lie.  Thank goodness it was a wonderful year, after all!

We could discuss the ridiculous attitude behind the phrase “as measured by our total recordable incident rate,” which seems to state that a massive oil spill is acceptable if there is only one of them per year.

We could laugh about the ingrained dishonesty in the term, “potential severity rate,” implying as it does that any disaster can be excused because it might have been worse.

For now, let’s just realize how easily we can be manipulated if we aren’t paying close attention. If you have ever doubted that a person or organization dedicated to maintaining an untenable untruth can lie with statistics, read that last statement again and wonder no more.

Transocean refused to own up to their errors and lies even when caught and called on the carpet. They blatantly twisted facts to support their desired conclusion. In an arrogant and cavalier manner, they ignored accusations and made themselves the victim and their accusers the offending party. They denied facts that stand incontrovertible in the plain light of day.

Arrogance… dishonesty… insults to our intelligence… condescending attitude… hypocrisy…

Here’s what we know that the ‘alternate reality’ spin doctors at Transocean don’t know. Sometimes, despite the best spinning and lying a corporation can do, the facts speak for themselves, if only we pay attention. 

- Gryphem