Lincoln’s Response to the idea of secession in his First Inaugural Address

In honor of the 150th Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, Pointz of View, over the next two days (July 2nd and July 3rd) will be posting several blogposts in regards to the Battle and the Civil War. In today's post, it will discuss the idea of secession and Lincoln's response to it in his First Inaugural Address. This was taken from an essay I did for school as part of my application for it's We the People class, in the interest of full disclosure. The class deals with the We the People competition, sponsored by the Center for Civic Education, which challenges students to become expert in the Constitution, from its foundation, philosophy and current issues under debate. Students compete at City and State championships, demonstrating their expertise in a speech and answer a series of probing questions from rotating groups of judges. In the 2012-2013 school year, the school placed first in New York State and represented it in the National tournament in Washington, D.C.

---

In March of 1861, the United States was anything but “united.” By the time of the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, 7 states, all in the Deep South – South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas – had seceded from the United States and formed their own nation, the Confederate States of America. Sectional conflicts over slavery, perceived cultural differences, and a lack of faith that the new government would faithfully enforce existing laws regarding slavery all drove them to leave the Union. It is worth mentioning that some Northerners weren’t exactly shedding any tears at the departure of those 7 states, in fact, some of them actually urged Lincoln not to make any effort to force them back in, to just let the “erring sisters go” in peace.

It was with this in mind that Lincoln would deliver his Inauguration Speech, knowing full well that his speech would be analyzed in both the North and the South for his response to the question of secession. On that cold, windy day, in front of an unfinished Capital, Lincoln responded to both Northern and Southern advocates of secession by saying that the Oath of Office, which included the lines... 

“to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” 

obligated him to preserve the Union, which he claimed was enshrined in the Constitution. As such, he declared that since the Oath of Office swore him to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his ability, any breakup of the Union under his watch would not be tolerated. The Union, ever since the States had agreed to ratify and accept the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land (the Supremacy Clause), is perpetual. As Lincoln stated in his speech, 

"In contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual." 

Throughout his speech, he claimed that when the Founding Fathers established the Constitution and sent it out for ratification, they enshrined within it the right to change the government peacefully through the ballot box, but they did not proved a right to walk away from it. They did this “in order to form a more perfect Union,” in which all states would be investing in the success and well being of the nation as a whole, through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government.

The prospect itself of secession would potentially make the operation of a free government impossible, because the government, and the nation at large, would be held hostage to the demands of a bitter, determined minority. Think of it this way: if a minority could secede every time it disapproved of the outcome of the vote of the majority, the result would be a swift descent into anarchy. There would still be checks on the power of the majority, but secession would not be one of them. To give the minority a permanent veto over the majority, such as the prospect of secession, would be negating self-government completely. And although the founders established a perpetual Union, they also provided for a government that would be of the people, by the people, and for the people – for all the people. Participation in, and engagement with the government, not withdrawal from it (such as secession) is the cornerstone of American Democracy.

If states wanted to ensure whatever rights they had left after they ratified the Constitution and joined the Union were respected, they could look no further than the Constitution itself – Federalism and the 10^th Amendment. The 10^th Amendment itself states “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.” Here, Lincoln claimed, was all the protection those states needed, and thus, why they needed to stay in the Union, because even if Lincoln wanted to do something about slavery in those states, he couldn’t because of the 10^th Amendment. Other obstacles, such as laws and U.S. Supreme Court Precedent (think Dred Scott) also stood in his way. Besides, the Ballot Box always stood at the ready for Southerners to make their voice heard. Secession, in essence, was unneeded.

The South major’s arguments to secede from the Union were the pretext of State’s Rights, and earlier movements in American History that although didn’t directly point to secession, that ultimately went in that direction. Coupled together, the South believed that they had a compelling argument for Secession. First and foremost was their belief in that they simply following in footsteps of those who fought in the American Revolution – they were breaking away from a government that they deemed to be oppressive and unresponsive to their needs. They pointed to the Declaration of Independence, which stated...

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” 

The South viewed the North’s refusal to enforce existing pro-slavery laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act, or abide by Supreme Court Decisions such as Dred Scott, as representative of the oppression directed against them and their way of life. They also resented the tariff, which in their view was just there to protect moneyed Northern Industrial interests, and Lincoln’s refusal to permit the expansion of slavery further West, as a violation and destructive to their rights to property (slaves), and closer to despotism then democracy.  

However, they also argued that in their view, the Constitution was merely a compact between the States to unite for the common good and defense, and that at time the compact could be broken if the common good was not provided for. In the South’s point of the view, the federal government established for in the Constitution was, not providing for the common good for them, with all the “unfair” anti-slavery agitation directed towards them from the North. The Federal Government, in not permitting the unrestricted expansion of slavery to the Western territories and only half-heartedly enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, was not upholding it’s side of the compact. Thus, when the Federal government does not “faithfully” uphold the compact that led to its creation in the first place, the States have the right to dissolve it by secession. In the South’s view, that is exactly what they were doing – enforcing the compact by seceding when the Federal Government failed to provide for them.

However, this was not the first time that the South, or any state, for that matter threatened to defy the Federal Government. The theory of Nullification, or that of the power of state to declare an act of the Federal Government null and void within it’s borders as unconstitutional, was also used by secessionists. South Carolina, who started the whole secessionist trend, was also a pioneer of Nullification in the 1820’s in the fight against the Tariff of 1828, which imposed a high duty on manufactured goods entering the United States. This was the first tariff explicitly passed to protect the developing industry in the United States, as well as providing funds for internal improvements. Southern opponents of the tariff called it the Tariff of Abominations, for it’s perceived detrimental effects on the Southern economy, which relied mainly on imports for most of it’s manufactured goods. Although Congress lowered it slightly in 1832, South Carolina was still not satisfied, and led by John C. Calhoun (who just happened to be Vice President at the time) published the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, which argued out the theory of Nullification. However, it also spelled out the theory of secession, with Calhoun saying that if worse comes to worse, South Carolina, as a last resort, could secede in order to protect the “liberty and sovereignty” of said state. 

I disagree with the prospect that if secession on demand is unacceptable, a Union at all costs is also a “troublesome idea.” First off, a Union at all costs is what the respective states, in ratifying the Constitution before gaining admission to the country, agreed to. The preamble says it all – 

“We the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” 

In order to provide for the “common defense” and “promote the general welfare,” the States must stay together, in a country, United. To have them potentially secede at will, as Lincoln expounded upon in his inaugural address, would create chaos and a descent to anarchy. If the states, or the people, aren’t satisfied with the way the federal government is treating them, there are several remedies besides ending the Union to gain attention to their problems, either in the Courts or most notably, in the ballot box. If one wants to cause change, one must participate, not withdraw via secession. A Union at all costs is actually, a perpetual Union enshrined within the Constitution, one that provides liberty and justice for all – if, to use Ben Franklin’s words, people can keep it. As Lincoln stated in his address, 

“I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

No successful government ever provided for a clause for it’s own termination, thus implying that a Union at all costs it is, for those who signed up for it, for those who now partake in it, for those who now depend on it. A Union at all costs is a small price to stability and peace, in order to provide “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to all it’s citizens. 

DOMA is Dead. Prop. 8 is Dead. Pride Month is ending on a strong note. Still gotta deal with it, though.

On Wednesday, June 26th, the Supreme Court, in a historic pair of decisions, struck down a key component of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), effectively rendering it moot, and via a procedural action, also effectively struck down California's Proposition 8, ruling that it's proponents do not have standing to defend the act if the state refused to do so. Today, acting under the instructions the Supreme Court spelled out in it's Majority Opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lifted the stay it imposed on marriages while it was on appeal, clearing the way for same-sex marriages to resume. 

As a long time supporter for LGBTQ Rights, I was ecstatic when I found out about the decisions. I found out at work, and just settled into my desk after arriving from the last day of school when I received a notification on my tablet - the Supreme Court had just overturned DOMA and effectively struck down Prop. 8. As soon as I heard this, I have to admit, I shed a few tears - mainly because a huge stigma had been lifted on more then a few people I know. One of my closest friends is gay, and through my various jobs, a good number of my co-workers identified themselves as LGBTQ.

But for me, it's more then just knowing a few people that are gay that makes this a passionate issue for me. For me, it's just a basic principle of equality, freedom, and civil rights - "with liberty and justice for all." Love is a strong emotion, one of the strongest emotions there is, and to say that a few select group of people can deny attempt to deny that emotion, based on a book that was wirrten by a group of men over 2,000 years ago or through their own non-sensical thoughts is just a sad, sickening, maddening thought. Who are we, as imperfect humans, tell other whom they can love? If anybody claims they have that right, I'm sorry, but that is just plain bulls#!t.

My own mom, when we discuss this, often she says to me that she admires the LGBTQ community, because, as she puts it -

The LGBTQ people are a very strong group of people. To be able to withstand a lot, from people denying their humanity to people killing them solely because they love someone, they are very strong. I admire them, and I feel for them. Why do people treat like that? Why? There is no reason whatsoever that they should be oppressed  spat upon, solely for whom they love.

Honestly, mom, I don't know. I wish I knew, but I don't.

Law & Society: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary?

In this latest installment of Law and Society, in which I have a chance to explore and ponder my response to some of the issues we face today, in the form of a law class homework response, one of the questions I received was this: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary? The following is my response to this question, and hopefully, it will cause some questions or debates to go off inside your head. Enjoy.


Question: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary? 

Response: The use and effect of the Death Penalty has been debated ever since it has been used, in essence, form the beginning of time. However, as time progressed, opposition against the death penalty has grown, and today, there is huge debate whether to continue applying the penalty or to abolish it. Most states today have abolished the death penalty, or have not applied it to use in along time. New York State, for example, has outlawed the death penalty since 2005. Some states continue to allow the active use of the death penalty, and some take their relaxed restrictions to the extremes (see Texas). Globally, the United States is part of shrinking group of countries that actively uses the death penalty, and the countries we share company with in that group are the complete opposites of us, such as Iran, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus and Indonesia, to name a few, and almost all have serious human rights violations. 

The Death Penalty is an unnecessary, barbaric, and unjust way to punish crime and their results. As Justice William Brennan stated in his concurring opinion in the case Furman v. Georgia, 

“Death is truly an awesome punishment. The calculated killing of a human being by the State involves, by its very nature, a denial of the executed person's humanity. The contrast with the plight of a person punished by imprisonment is evident. An individual in prison does not lose "the right to have rights." A prisoner retains, for example, the constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion, to be free of cruel and unusual punishments, and to treatment as a "person" for purposes of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. A prisoner remains a member of the human family. Moreover, he retains the right of access to the courts. His punishment is not irrevocable. Apart from the common charge, grounded upon the recognition of human fallibility, that the punishment of death must inevitably be inflicted upon innocent men, we know that death has been the lot of men whose convictions were unconstitutionally secured….the punishment itself may have been unconstitutionally inflicted….yet the finality of death precludes relief. An executed person has indeed "lost the right to have rights." As one 19th century proponent of punishing criminals by death declared, "When a man is hung, there is an end of our relations with him. His execution is a way of saying, `You are not fit for this world, take your chance elsewhere.'” 

In essence, while death is an extreme punishment, the very notion of the state planning the death of one person is virtually denying their humanity. And the death penalty isn’t applied equally. A study known as the Baldus Study has shown that minorities who have committed a violent crime and face the death penalty have a bigger chance of being punished with death the white and Caucasians criminals do. It also discovered that minorities who were accused of killing a white person also had a great chance of receiving the death penalty then did a white person who was accused of killing a minority. As Justice William Murphy said, 

“Only by zealously guarding the rights of the most humble, the most unorthodox and the most despised among us can freedom flourish and endure in our land....” 

Death as a punishment does not guard our freedoms- it revokes them from us, and we need to protect our rights, even if it means guarding the rights of the most violent criminals. And the death penalty doesn’t address the root cause of crime in the first place- most criminals come from poor, broken families, and killing the guy doesn't pull the person out of poverty. When people are poor, they will do anything to get out, and some will resort to crime. Instead of executing, we need to help those families who are poor and need assistance, to help receive a good upbringing, with a quality education, without the stigma of being poor. And the death penalty doesn’t do that. It doesn't solve anything- if one guy is executed, another will be there to take his place. It is barbaric, inhuman, and it is cruel and unusual punishment for any crime, even for murder. I therefore respectfully dissent against the use of the death penalty, and in favor of repealing it as a method of punishment.     


Law and Society: This the second in a series of articles in which we explore the effects of law on society, and the effects of society on the law.   

Have certain punishments been more effective then others? Has any punishment been effective at all?

So, I'm taking a law class at my current high school, and we get homework everyday, in which we have to explore some of the current issues facing law and society today. As such, this gives me a chance to explore and ponder my response to some of the issues we face today, in the form of a law homework response. One of the questions we got as an assignment one day was this: What punishment do you think accomplished it's goal? Why? The following is my response to this question, and this marks the beginning of new segment in this blog, titled Law and Society, in which I will periodically share my responses to certain homework questions I received in my law class. Enjoy, and I hope all you have a Happy Holidays.
--------------------------------------------
Question: What punishment do you think accomplished it's goal? Why?


Response: The goal of punishments is to achieve a perfect society in which rules and laws are respected, under the threat of severe punishment for those who break them, in order to deter people from committing crimes. If were to look at the question from that perspective, then all punishments, have simply put, utterly failed to reach that goal. If punishments really did achieve their goal, then there would be no crimes, no human being would ever be harmed, and there would be peace, love and equality (in all forms), all over, and we would be living in a utopia, or a prefect society. It can come close to achieving it, but we will never see it happen, because we, as humans, are imperfect. It is in our nature to skirt or break rules and laws to achieve some (and hopefully very few) of our goals. 


However, if were to look at it from a different perspective, then punishments haven’t completely failed in the goal, and we could have a small glimmer of hope. From that perspective, then each type of punishment have widely varying rates of success. For example, some punishments, such as fines, deter most people from breaking laws because they are a nuisance to receive and shake off (think of traffic tickets), especially towards your wallet. Probation also is effective in most, but not in all cases, because it keeps the person in line while under the watch of a probation officer- if the person steps out of line, and if the offense is great enough, then the person will be given a more severe sentence, such as a hefty fine, a stricter set of probation guidelines, or some instances, even jail time. 


Incarceration, on the other hand has a much more mixed track record. On one hand, the average citizen fears going to jail, and the threat of going to jail for most crimes is enough to deter most people from doing serious crimes. On the other hand, the U.S. has one of the highest incarceration and re-incarceration rates in the world, and the threat of jail is often insufficient enough to deter career criminals from committing major, and often violent crimes. Usually, only the threat of long and severe prison sentences (Life, life without parole, 20 to life, as such) serve as a determent to most people, and even then, some criminals continue committing crimes. We must also note that people are sometimes thrown in jail for (sometimes) ridiculously small reasons as well, and that has helped the prison population rate to explode to record levels. Some offenses, such as carrying very small amounts of marijuana or using very, very small amounts of controlled substances, are given mandatory (and often long) prison sentences, while in reality, it could be better suited to send that person to rehabilitation. 


Lastly, there is the death penalty, usually used in extreme and violent cases (such as a violent robbery, murder, or an extremely violent sexual assault) and as such, in most states, it’s use is severely restricted, while in others, restrictions are more relaxed (for an extreme example, see Texas). Still, other states prohibit the use of the death penalty, calling it ‘barbaric’ and ‘unjust.’ New York State has prohibited the death penalty as a form of punishment. Some claim that this punishment, if used effectively, will deter people from committing serious and violent crimes under the threat of death, while others say that it is an ineffective and costly way to punish, stating that is applied unequally, and that there will always exist a small chance of error for executing a person for the wrong crime (it has happened), and that no life, no mater how despised, should be taken away, even if they are violent criminals. Still others point to it as cruel and unusual punishment, and point out that in societies where the death penalty is (or was) used commonly, the people there are disenchanted, oppressed, or both, and in most cases, the extreme use of it has led to rebellion. 


In short, no punishment has ever completely reached it’s goal- but they haven’t completely failed either. Each have widely varying degrees of success, but we can safely say that all are on the varying levels in terms of progress. Some punishments are more widely used and more effective, while others are less used, and then others are rarely used but sometimes effective or ineffective. Yet, they have all made some progress in coming closer to achieving the goal of a well-regulated and a perfect society, but we still have a long way to go. 


Law and Society: This the first in a series of articles in which we explore the effects of law on society, and the effects of society on the law.   

So, how to deal with in regards to immigration?

As we all know, immigration is one of the most controversial and divisive topics that out nation is facing right now, as well as being one of the hardest to solve- and inaction on this topic isn't helping. Some states, such as Alabama and Arizona, have tried to regulate this problem- by trying make immigration law themselves, yet these laws push the limits of civil rights. So in response, here is my basic framework in regards to immigration reform. 


My Plan for Immigration Reform


For People Who Committed Major (Felony) Crimes- (Rape, Assault, Homicide, Robbery, etc.)

• They must be deported, no questions asked. These people damage the reputation of immigrants everywhere, and letting them stay here won't help the problem. These are the type of people, along with gang members, that DHS should be concentrating on. Of course, they will be a given a hearing with their entitled rights, but if they are found guilty, the only punishment would be deportation.   

For People Who Are In Good Social Standing

• Must be living 7-10 Years in the United States or more.
• Preference given if they have a family and/or kids who are under the Age of 18.  
• They must be paying their taxes, or be on their way to paying off their debt to Uncle Sam.
• Must undergo a background check.
• Pass an English literacy and English fluency test, and pass a basic citizenship test (basic US history).

A large, lump sum "penalty" could be paid by people who did NOT have the proper visas for all 8 years, equivalent to 8 years visa fees + interest. People partially through the 8 years could pay the penalty for the number of years they were here illegally to be restored to "good standing" and then apply for visas for the remaining number of years.

This makes the government money, and allows a difficult, but possible, path to citizenship for illegals who have been living here and on otherwise good behavior under the old and flawed system, and it is NOT a handout. This is different from the dud of 1986, which basically gave anyone amnesty. This also makes new, desperately needed source of revenue for the government.  

• In the case of military service, 5 years of service with an honorary discharge from any branch of Armed Forces would be satisfactory to establish citizenship. The fees for visas and possibly taxes would be waived.
• Children or people who came as very young children and managed to get at least an Associates or a Master Degree, or have contributed Military Service to this country would also be allowed to apply for citizenship. The fees for visas and possibly taxes would be waived on a case by case basis, however.   

This would be the basic requirements for the majority of immigrants here in the United States. 

For People Who Committed Minor Crimes. 

• MUST have not committed any crime for 5 Years 
• Paid their taxes.
• Must know English.
• Must pass an English literacy and English fluency test, and pass a basic citizenship test (basic US history).
• A large, lump sum "penalty" could be paid by people who did NOT have the proper visas for all 8 years, equivalent to 8 years visa fees + interest. People partially through the 8 years could pay the penalty for the number of years they were here illegally to be restored to "good standing" and then apply for visas for the remaining number of years.

Another aspect of this plan would also include on going after employers who use immigrant labor, mainly because they know that immigrants would work for whatever wages, as long as it is work. Usually, immigrants are exploited, because they know that immigrants usually fear reporting such abuses to the proper authorities because of their status.  I would not mandate the the use of E-Verify, since it is still a work in progress, but employers would be subject to audits from time to time. This, in all, is my plan for immigration reform. Now, lets talk about those laws, shall we?

The proponents of the majority of these new laws in Alabama, Arizona, and other states say that because illegal immigrants, are well, illegally here, they are not entitled to any of the rights that U.S. Citizens are entitled to. The great majority also argue for the repeal of the 14th Amendment. Well, looks like some people either aren't brushed up on their political history, don't care about Constitutional Law, or weren't paying attention when taking Political Science. Why do we call it a democracy if we give, as Locke put it, the natural rights of all people of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to select people  and deny it to others? These are all rights, that according to Locke, all people are born with. If we deny it here to a select group, why even call it a democracy? A democracy is not a democracy when we deny it to a group of people. Some people argue that... 

"Illegal immigrants do not contribute to the U.S. as much as citizens do (except physical labor), and therefore cannot experience the same things we do." 

To this, I say BS. So just because in your mind, because they don't "contribute to the U.S. as citizens do," they don't have the right to experience the freedom and protection of the law we all enjoy? That they don't enjoy the natural rights that all people are born with? If we deny them the protection of the law, can we truly say that we are one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? Explain why they are willing to work picking crops while being paid some low-a** wages and in some really terrible conditions. Those who claim that immigrants don't contribute much to the U.S. and that their rights should be infringed might as well cite Chief Justice's Roger Taney's opinion in Dred Scott, because it seems to emphasize their position.  Now, one of their favorite responses to this seems to be that since 

"Illegals are not citizens, therefore they have not consented to the American government that provides these rights to those who, as citizens, have consented to the American form of government. Therefore the American government does not exist to guarantee illegal immigrants these rights, only people who ARE citizens, or who are here legally in accordance with the very rules of the government that would provide them with those rights in the first place."

Well, since, that would be a violation of human rights. Since they aren't U.S. Citizens, they aren't entitled to their rights, eh?  So, let's say an immigrant has been accused of a crime- would he be given a fair and speedy trial, or would he be immediately assumed guilty, since as a non-citizen, he has no right to a fari trial and be sent to prison with due process of the law? That would be a violation of what America stands for- liberty and justice for all. Or if somebody committed a crime against an immigrant- would that person be prosecuted under the law, would he be let free without any sort of trial, simply because the victim is an illegal immigrant, and as such, has nor right to bring up a claim because he is not a citizen, and thus, not entitled to his rights? Now, the 14th Amendment. Many people are arguing for the repeal of that amendment, because it promotes immigration by allowing for so-called 'anchor babies," and since anyone born here is entitled to U.S. Citizenship, they are also entitled to the benefits that come to it.  Well, first of all, the benefits are only for the child, not for the parent, and second of all, Why? You would be depriving a chance for the child to become a potential asset to this country, to allow that child to aspire for his dreams in the greatest country in the world. Look, I'm the son of illegal immigrants. I work hard in school (my grades show it), I read The New York Times, I'm deeply interested in law, politics, and history- and I was born here, thus I am a U.S. Citizen. What about the other kids who are just like me, or are similar to me, but yet wouldn't be citizens if the 14th Amendment is repealed? What would happen to them? Should they let their dreams die away? What about me? Would I get my citizenship taken away because I just happened to be the son of illegal immigrants? I already mentioned in an earlier blog post about the rights of immigrants under the 14th Amendment. Let's see, has the U.S. Supreme Cout affirmed other rights for immigrants? I'm hearing they have. Let' see..

• United States v. Wong Kim Ark
• Truax v. Raich
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins
• Oyama v. California
• Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission
• Graham v. Richardson

Wow. All those cases that affirmed the rights of immigrants, and are still in force today. Man, leaves you something to think, eh? Yet, we must continue to fight these laws, and challenge these laws forcefully in court as the deprivation of liberties, using these cases as ammo. We can only hope. 

150 years after Fort Sumter, forces that gave rise to the Civil War still plague modern America (Guest).

It is 150 years since the fist shot of the Civil War was fired, and even today, we see that some aspects of it are alive. It may not be the obvious ones, but this Op-Ed by David W. Blight, who teaches American History at Yale, perfectly explains it below. Pardon me for not posting any recent posts, as I have been busy with schoolwork, but this Op-Ed that is full of reason and one you will enjoy. This Op-Ed first appeared on The New York Daily News.
--------------------------------------

In his "The Legacy of the Civil War," written in 1961, Robert Penn Warren declared: "The Civil War draws us as an oracle, darkly unriddled and portentous, of national as well as personal fate." While writing that book, Warren described his challenge: "to distinguish between historical importance" of the war and its "fundamental appeal to the American imagination." All the "attractions" Americans felt toward the Civil War, he concluded, were not "worthy." "Because the war made us great we like to look at it — as the dog likes to look at the icebox door."

Do we as a people gaze at the Civil War more than we actually understand it? Is this most pivotal event in our history still, at its 150th anniversary, a story we look at like rubber-neckers at a horrible car accident?

Or, have we finally matured to a stage of reasonable consensus on the war's causes and consequences?

And where is the Civil War's "oracle?" On Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg? Monument Avenue in Richmond? In the words on the walls of the Lincoln Memorial? 

At Stone Mountain in Georgia? At Augustus Saint-Gaudens' masterpiece sculpture, the Shaw Memorial in Boston, dedicated to the African-American regiment, the 54thMassachusetts? Is it in a book, a favorite passage of prose by Bruce Catton or Shelby Foote, or poetry by Walt Whitman, or oratory by Martin Luther King, Jr., or an essay by James Baldwin? Or is that oracle simply in our minds, ready to burst into action when prompted by a modern issue, a fear — or a legacy that suddenly hits us between the eyes?

What indeed is the hold of our worst national nightmare and bloodletting on the American imagination?

The war's powerful hold on us is both deeply human and profoundly American. The many conflicts that expressed themselves through that single, great conflict are in many ways with us still.

The historical imagination is drawn to loss, to the withering story of the 625,000 dead American soldiers and the uncounted civilian casualties. Loss on a profound scale is the subject of some of the world's greatest literature, epic myths and national destruction and creation stories. As Whitman mused in "Specimen Days," it was "the dead, the dead, the dead, our dead — or South or North, ours all" that had unmade and might yet re-make America.

We are also drawn to epic history, that which invests us in what we innocently like to call a Homeric tale all our own, as though such is the test of peoplehood. If

Civil War enthusiasts admit it, they love this conflict because it is a great contest for world-historical aims, a fundamental rending, but one with a beginning, middle and, if we so wish, a tidy ending. As William Dean Howells once said, Americans "love a tragedy," as long as "it has a happy ending."

For some, the Civil War's seductions involve the sheer pleasure of military detail, the strategic and tactical fight on the ground, or in the mental battlefield, where winners and losers can be crowned and great warriors anointed as geniuses. On perhaps a deeper level, many are attracted to this event because they have learned that a "modern" America was somehow born out of that terrible time, an America that despite the sacrifice was to become a powerful, centralized, world power able to forge The American Century to follow.

And in searching for the origins of our modernity, we often insist on a story of national reconciliation — reached largely by the denigration of the humanity and the destruction of the rights of the millions of blacks freed in the war. Such a heroic reunion story delivers a Civil War that ultimately unified us. In all our vexing diversity, people often love to revisit the Civil War to find a time when we fought to the death in order, as the pleasing story goes, to find our greater destiny and unity. We love being the nation that freed the slaves, rather than the one that owned four million people as property and had to destroy ourselves in order to save ourselves.

Increasingly over recent decades, new generations of Americans may also have read or been taught that the Civil War and Reconstruction brought the end of the first American republic and the bloody rebirth of a new, second republic. If we listen carefully, "rebirth" is the central metaphor of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. What he was saying is that the republic founded "fourscore and seven years" past was interred in the fresh graves of the cemetery he dedicated. A new "nation" had to be forged, somehow rooted in the frightening but beautiful idea of human equality.

When we see the Civil War through this lens, then our oracle is potentially infinite in its lessons and wisdom. And then we also begin to see why this event really is the pivot of our history, as our first great racial reckoning, but also in the redefinition of what it means to be an American in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

If we can remember our Civil War as this kind of constitutional and moral transformation — rooted in the social revolution of emancipation — then we may begin to grasp not only why it has such staying power in our imaginations, but why so many of our roiling political issues of today can be traced to those graves of 1863 and the new nation they died to create.

Today, we live in a society not only polarized over race relations and the advent of a black President, over the rights of immigrants, over religious tolerance, over who and what is a legitimate American and whether they shall be accorded "birth-right citizenship" as enshrined in the first line of the Fourteenth Amendment. But we have a political culture riven by a near war over federalism — the ceaseless debate about the proper relation of federal to state power. Yes, the Civil War is rooted in states' rights. But the significance of any exercise of states' rights is always in the issue to which it is employed. And in 1860-61, "state sovereignty" was exercised by some Southerners as an act of revolution in the interest, as they said themselves over and over, of preserving a racial order and a system of slavery.

Today, states' rights doctrines are advanced by many governors and Republican-majority legislatures in the very language of "secession" and "nullification" made so infamous in antebellum America.

A short list of examples among many tells us just how alive some Civil War legacies are in our culture. Kentucky has a bill pending to make that state a "sanctuary" from the Environmental Protection Agency. Arizona Republicans want to exempt products made in their state from federal interstate commerce laws. Montana is considering a bill to "nullify" the federal Endangered Species Act. The same state's legislature has a bill pending that would require the FBI to get a local sheriff's permission to make any arrests. Utah passed a bill authorizing the use of eminent domain to seize federally-protected land. And many Republican governors and attorneys general have tried to use the courts to nullify federal health care reform. Some state legislatures have tried to pass bills declaring their residents "exempt" from the health care reform law.

This is nullification by any other name, and it is happening, unfortunately, in too large a vacuum of historical perspective. We have a history with this idea, and it had a terrible result in 1861. Either the United States born in slave emancipation and that second American republic of 1865-68 is based on a social contract, forged and reforged by the new historical imperatives of industrialization and urbanization in the Progressive era, by a horrible economic Depression in the 1930s and a civil rights revolution in the 1960s, all of which for real and good reasons necessitated the increased exercise of federal power to protect human liberty, welfare and survival, or it does not.

The conservative movement in America seems determined to repeal much of the 20th century, and even its constitutional and social roots in the transformations of the 1860s. The Civil War is not only not over; it can still be lost. At its sesquicentennial, as much as ever, we should journey to our oracle, not to seek its "attractions," but to listen carefully for its "historical importance."

Blight teaches American history at Yale University, and is the author of "Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory," and the forthcoming "American Oracle: The Civil War in the Civil Rights Era."

This Op-Ed first appeared on the New York Daily News on April 12, 2011.