Civil War rehash revisits familiar questions

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

When responding to a Los Angeles Times Op-ed, this past week, I was painfully reminded how intense censorship has become in America.

It wasn’t 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 drive home his point. That I took exception demonstrated that any departure from the narrative was verboten.

Inconvenient Facts

The 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 goal of the Emancipation Proclamation was to keep England and France from intervening on the part of the Confederacy. This looked imminent in the summer of 1862.

Good, bad or indifferent, fact is 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 loathed the institution, is unquestioned. That he was unwilling to make it a war objective in 1861 was based on legalities and realities.

Enforcing Revisionist History

Apparently objectionable to the censors was to invoke a simple truism: “That Emancipation did not become a war objective until 1863.” While the abolition movement had been around for more than three or four decades, it was not the primary objective in 1861.

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

That slavery is a stain on the nation’s history is unquestioned. That its existence in 1861 was inexcusable. Left unsaid were implications clearly a part of the picture. Beginning with the 3/5 compromise.

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 U.S. House of Representatives and the Electoral College. By 1860, a wide majority of Immigrants were choosing to settle in the North, due to an abundance of low-paying factory jobs.

Many states levied taxes on slaves. Louisiana, for example, drew 2/3 of its tax revenue from taxes on slaves.

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

Censors evidently conclude that these sidebars complicate the conclusion. Presenting the issue solely on strictly moral grounds lends credence to “alt-left” movements such as “Critical Race Theory” and “Wokism.”

Why it Matters…

Eastern Industrialists were increasingly frustrated with the South’s traditional trade practices with France and Great Britain. Southern steamers loaded with Cotton, Rice, Sugar and Tobacco found that they could return with European consumer products much more affordable than buying them from Northern factories.

Rather than making their factories more efficient and cutting their profit margins, the North used its electoral advantage to legislatively unlevel the playing field. Their tool was protective tariffs. Reminding their Northern neighbors that the states’ union was voluntary, the South bid them “adieu.”

The question becomes, “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. Yet, he literally “walked all over the Constitution.” Starting with his suspension of Habeas Corpus. “The Writ of Habeas Corpus” ensures due process and the right to a speedy trial. For Lincoln, this proved inconvenient. Worse still, it is yet to be reinstated. January 6th internees can vouch for it!

Lincoln likewise had an aversion to Media outlets contradicting the government narrative. Many newspapers were closed, and their editors were subsequently jailed for the duration of the war. In his thinking, the First Amendment had become a liability.

Lincoln apologists admit that he “compromised the constitution in order to save the nation.” This assertion might carry some merit. But to what extent?

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

Learning From Past Mistakes

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

The “strict constructionist” response would be, “A line cannot be drawn. The founders so feared an out-of-control federal government that they went to great lengths to keep it pure, and in its proper place.”

There is the January 6th argument. The First Amendment gives citizens the right to peacefully assemble. Many who did were interned without due process. Advocates contended that the assembly was not peaceful. Opponents claim that the FBI, working in conjunction with the D.C. government, “staged the violence.”

When Donald Trump claimed that the 2020 election had been stolen, he was indicted. While the verdict is still out, a large part of the country fears that a conviction may lead to at best, further strife. At worst, it might ignite a repeat of 1861!

Many, if not most Americans hold the media accountable for stimulating the nation’s division. Rather than objectively presenting both sides of the debate in a factual manner, thanks to severely fattened wallets, most have comfortably adapted to their new roles as “propagandists.”

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

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!