.

Dear Galen,

.

A little more about Paul Craig Roberts' article.

First, I must acknowledge that Roberts, as you probably know, is a highly respected American economist who served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Ronald Reagan. He was a proponent of supply side economics (lowering taxes and deregulation). Politically, he was a liberal conservative (centre-right). He later became a reputable economic journalist.

In his later years, he made a specialty of writing spectacular articles in which he reinterprets major historical events such as the 9/11, and Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks, as well as this latest article on Secession and the American Civil War.

Roberts himself was from the Deep South, born and educated in Atlanta, the capital of Georgia, the home of the civil rights movement and Dr. Martin Luther King.

Roberts denies there was a civil war :

« There was no civil war. There was a War of Northern Aggression. A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government ».

That is a fairly astonishing statement, coming from an intellectual of the calibre of Roberts. The OED defines civil war as follows :

« a war between citizens of the same country » (nothing to do with “fighting for control of the government).

The authoritative American Merriam-Webster dictionary, defines it as :

« a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country » (again, nothing to do with “fighting for control of the government”).

Once we accept Roberts’ distorted vision of a civil war, we enter into his somewhat biased personal thought process and interpretation of events. His facts are absolutely impeccable. There is nothing wrong with them. It is his vision, analysis, evaluation and interpretation of the facts that are highly tendentious, especially his interpretation of the true, underlying motives of the various actors of the historic events that led to Secession and the American Civil War.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Roberts holds up as a major piece of evidence of his theories, Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural speech as president in 1861, in which he states :

« [though] I have not seen … a proposed amendment to the Constitution … that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held [understand: "presently held"] in service … I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable ».

Roberts sees this as proof that slavery could not possibly have been the cause of Secession because the new president declared he had no objection to the States keeping their slaves. He maintains that “slavery had nothing whatsoever to do with the war”.

He explains that the South left the Union :

« Because it was being economically exploited by the North, which, once the North gained the ability to outvote the Southern states, imposed tariffs that benefited the North at the expense of the South ».

While Roberts’ facts are exact, he fails to acknowledge that the South’s economic success was totally dependent on slave labour.

Also, Roberts does not mention the fact that South Carolina, the first State to vote in favour of secession, issued a document indicating the causes leading to its decision and another document inviting other seceding States to form "a Confederacy of Slaveholding States."

The first document, the declaration of causes, states that :

« A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction » :

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/south-carolina-declaration-of-causes-of-secession/

The following article by the American constitutionalist, Jonathan Turley, is also worth consulting :

http://www.historynet.com/secession

.

BP,
Thank you so much for responding with an in-depth analysis of Roberts views.

I believe he makes a number of strong arguments in favour of his views, however I also agree you have right to take leave of his beliefs.

Again, thanks for responding to my request, I will leave it at that.

Regards
Geoff (Galen)