Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Happy 150th Anniversary


Years ago I had a friend from Dallas named Bert, whom I met through work.  He was a big burly man with a deep gravelly voice and an even deeper Texas accent.  When he first met me his first question was, “Barbara are you a Yankee or a damned Yankee?”  I asked what the difference was and he answered,  “A Yankee is a Northerner who comes to visit us, and a damned Yankee comes to stay.”  

It was my first inkling that the Civil War has never really ended.

Today, April 12th, marks the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War.  At 4:30 a.m. Confederate forces at Fort Moultrie unleashed a barrage of artillery fire at Fort Sumter, a federal military installation in Charleston harbor.   More than 38 hours later Fort Sumter surrendered.  Except for a mule, there was no blood shed in this first action of the war, prompting former South Carolina Senator James Chestnut to boast that the Confederate forces were so superior that only a thimble full of blood would be spilled before the Union surrendered.  The war lasted four years and caused over 620,000 casualties before the Confederates finally surrendered.

But the war didn’t really end with General Lee’s surrender at Appomattox.  The era of Reconstruction, which included Federal occupation, increased taxes and carpetbaggers who bought land for pennies on the dollar, lasted until 1877.  After Reconstruction the South fought back with the KKK and Jim Crow laws.  They lost their last battle when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.  

I have participated in many Civil War forums over the years, and I’m still amazed at the number of people who continue to deny the true cause of the Civil War.    I’ve heard everything from states’ rights to high tariffs all the way down to Lincoln was just an evil dictator.  I have never heard a Southern apologist admit that the war was about slavery.

In fact, slavery was the cause.  And the Civil War didn’t really start on April 12, 1861.  It started in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified where in Article I Section 2 it outlines the apportionment of representatives “among the several states according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.”  All other persons referred to slaves. 

In the 74 intervening years the Southern slave holding states threatened to secede several times trying to protect that 3/5 clause and their equal representation in Congress.  To maintain the Union, Northern congressman appeased them with one compromise after another.  But when Lincoln, who said that he wished to restrict the territorial enlargement of slavery into the new west, was elected to the presidency, the Southern states seceded one after another.  The era of compromise was over.

That “peculiar institution” of slavery was the basis of the Southern agrarian economy, and if they didn’t have political equality in Congress their ability to sustain slavery as an economic institution was doomed.  

There is no article in our Constitution that forbids secession of any state.  So the argument that the slave holding states had a right to secede is plausible.  But they were seceding to protect the right to own slaves.  There were cultural and social issues involved as well, all stemming from the institution of slavery, but the “states’ rights” argument is an easy way to gloss over the moral issue of slavery by claiming that they had a right to secede, thus claiming that Lincoln had initiated a war of “Northern Aggression”.  

Lincoln had been thinking and speaking about the future of slavery for years prior to his presidency because he believed that the thoughts and ideals of human equality expressed in the Declaration of Independence outweighed the strict limitations of the Constitution.  In his “House Divided” speech to the Illinois state senate in 1858 he proclaimed his belief that “this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.  It will become all one thing or all the other.”

Lincoln was right.  And it took much more than just a thimble full of blood.  

Ironically Bert and I became very good friends.  I sent him postcards and a bullet from Gettysburg and he sent me a huge box of shrapnel from Vicksburg.   Though he never would admit that the war was about slavery, and he always called me Yank, we overcame our sectional and political differences.    Bert passed away a while ago and I miss him.  But he can rest in peace knowing that I’ll never be a damned Yankee.

Monday, April 4, 2011

Humanitarianism and Oil


Humanitarianism and Oil 


On Monday, March 28th President Obama spoke to the nation explaining the reasons that the United States is engaged with NATO in implementing a NO-FLY zone over Libyan air space.  In this speech he said that it was primarily for humanitarian purposes, to protect innocent civilians from Moammar Gaddafi’s forces.  He also stated that our intervention was to protect strategic interests in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt, to prevent mass evacuations of refugees from inundating two nations that have new and fragile interim governments.
That’s all well and good.  But in the meantime our gas prices have risen by almost a dollar since this civil war in Libya started about a month ago.    At the time the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Libyan exports, including oil.  Although Libya supplies only 2% of the world’s oil, it is their biggest money-maker.  (80% of the country is desert.)
Exxon Mobil, Chevron and BP have all been granted licenses for off-shore oil drilling by Libya since 2005.  All three companies complied with the UN sanctions and American ex-patriots were evacuated from the oil rigs.   Exxon Chief Executive Rex Tillerson has said, “There is no supply shortage.  We’ve had no problem replacing the Libyan crude we were lifting”, adding that Exxon does not produce crude in Libya but does process the oil at its Trecate refinery in Italy.[1]  Tillerson also stated that Exxon Mobil has been able to replace Libyan crude with other sources at its Mediterranean refineries.[2]
So why are they raising the price of gas?  Quite simply, because they can.   We need it and they’re the only ones that supply it.  Any crisis in the Middle East gives them a false excuse to raise the prices and thereby make huge profits while the rest of the country suffers.  The price of everything automatically increases because transportation costs increase.  And yet most Americans are not making a higher salary.
Most of our military actions of the 20th century have been about oil.  We placed an oil embargo on Japan when they invaded China in the 1930’s and in turn they attacked our naval fleet at Pearl Harbor in order to keep us from enforcing it.  We led a UN police action in Korea presumably to prevent Communist China from conquering all of Korea, when really it was to protect oil interests off the coast of Korea.  Vietnam – we took over when France capitulated.  Was it to prevent the spread of Communism?  No, it was all about the oil off the coast.
Are we really to believe that this action in Libya is for humanitarian reasons?  There are now several revolutions against dictators throughout the Middle East and Africa.  Syria doesn’t supply us with any oil and we have no diplomatic relations with them.  Jordan and Bahrain are two of our closest Middle East allies so we can’t back the rebels there although they too are being slaughtered in the streets.  And Yemen is being overrun by Al Quada led rebels.  In the Ivory Coast over one thousand people were slaughtered in one town in one day.
 Oh, but there’s no oil there. 

(Reuters.com, 2011)
(UPI.com, 2009)
(Journal, 2011)
Herring, George C., “America and Vietnam: The Unending War”  (1992)  Taking Sides – Clashing Views on Contraversial Issues in American History Vol. 2, Sixth Edition. 
(Interpretations of American History - Patterns and Perspectives, 1992)


[1] Reuters.com, March 9, 2011
[2] Dallas Business Journal, March 17, 2011