Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Why Learning and Teaching History, Real History, is Really Important


 Moss Robert visited the blog the other day and left some comments on the Southern cause and maybe on Taoism.  He's become a little hip and cool and quit using capitol letters, but was he right?

Some time ago I posted a thread called "Fighting Terrorism Since 1861". Eh? Your bumper sticker makes no sense.  It lurked there for over a year without anyone commenting on it.

In that year's time, however, nearly a quarter million new views to the blog occurred and of course there came to be the entire controversy over the removal of Confederate monuments and the combined impact of that was that apparently people started to surf into that thread as a result.  Not all of them were pleased at all.  Specifically, two felt moved to comment, which I appreciate as I very much encourage comments including those by people I do not agree with.  One person posted anonymously, which is perfectly fine.  Fairly surprisingly, the blog was also visited by the late Robert E. Lee, former Commander of the Army of Virginia, who to my added surprise apparently eschews capitalization of his middle initial and last name, sort of like e e cummings but less so, as in Robert e lee.

e e cummings.  Apparently he and Robert E. Lee are now pals. . . . I guess.  It's a bit surprising as Cummings was such a bohemian and Lee was not, but then politically they both ended up being pretty conservative.

My comment upset a reader a few weeks back and they came in with this comment.

That view lacks a very significant aspect of this often made argument, which I pointed out when I replied:
There's one significant problem with your comment, this being it; "The South voted to leave the Union and stated so by forming the Confederacy."That's not true.But that is the basis of the Southern claim to sovereignty.In actuality, the Southern white landed class voted to leave the Union.By and large, the Southern Yeoman class didn't vote on the issue at all. Indeed, in at least one instance the question presented to the delegates left no other option but to vote for one of two succession options in and of itself. In that particular instance, the white yeoman delegate was nonetheless held in contempt by his county for having voted for succession.Moreover, blacks obviously weren't voting on this issue at all, which makes the claim that Southerners voted to leave the union all the more suspect. South Carolina had more blacks than whites as residents of that state, but they were almost all held in bondage. If they, the majority of South Carolinian's, had been able to vote, do we suppose that they would have voted in favor of succession?So, at the end of the day, no vote of the Southern populace was ever held. There was never a referendum per se. And the voting demographic of the South in 1860 was pretty much limited to the planter and professional classes, who were all white, and who were a minority of Southerners.Not very democratic, was it?And if a person is to defend that vote, shouldn't they address how white Southern yeomen and the millions of Southern blacks would have voted had they had the chance?
Then, just recently late Gen. Robert E. Lee was even more strident in his defense of the Lost Cause, noting, twice:
Robert e lee said... 
 
No stupid, the south was fighting the terroism of the government wanting to tax you and has lead to the corrupt crap of a government he have today. It was never about slavery as both sides had slaves. You people need a truthful history lesson and stop believing the left wing liberals on the TV. Again the good old Confederate army was fighting the over reaching long arm of government and the Yankee types we're and are stupid enough to fight for being taxed and large government, Moran's. I'm Confederate till the day I die. 
And; 

Robert e lee said... 
 
Was never about slavery, north and south had slaves, it was about the south fighting the terroism of the government and taxes, long over reaching government that has resulted in the crap government we have today, Yankees were stupid enough to fight in a war against common sense to get to be taxed and be stolen from by government, and the same dump Yankee and Westerner mind set is still on display today fighting against common sense at all cost, I'm a confederate till my dying day, another revolution against this government is past due.
  
Here I confess I must digress just a bit as I may in fact not understand Gen. Lee's post.  As you know, Gen. Lee was a well educated, slave owning, patrician who used correct English, so I have to assume that this continues to be the case even now that he is occupied in his final reward.  So, while I have presumed that he was posting in regards to the bumper sticker in question referencing "terrorism", he has instead referred to "terroism" twice.  Once would indicate a typographical error, and twice persistent intent.  I'm not really sure what "terroism" is actually,  I know what terrorism is, however.  Perhaps Gen. Lee, having gone on to the next world and having had the opportunity to more greatly mix with those of other backgrounds wants us to know that the South was not departing the Union over Taoism.  If so, that's certainly glad to know.
 
Laozi, founder of Taoism.  Gen. Lee (perhaps whith e e cummings) may be hanging around with Laozi now, which frankly surprises me quite a bit.

His reference to Moran's is also curious.  My assumption here is that, as a practitioner of mobile warfare, he is referring us to Nicholas Moran, the popular Irish immigrant Armor branch officer who posts on armor on Youtube.  It's nice to know that Gen. Lee is keeping up on military affairs even now, after his long retirement from it.

Okay, I'll quit being a snot and note something more serious.  First, here's my reply to Gen. Lee:

Pat, Marcus & Alexis said... 
 
"Was never about slavery, north and south had slaves"

A couple of points.

By 1860 the only states in the north that retained slavery were the border states, so you're pretty much looking at Maryland and Tennessee, if you consider those "northern" states. Neither left the Union although you can debate that in regards to Tennessee. FWIW, of course, there were large segments of the South where slavery was legal and succession was opposed, the western portion of Virginia being the most obvious example but there being others. So your point is here is quite far off the mark historically.

It would also be a real shock to southern legislators that voted to leave the Union as they specifically and repeatedly made reference to slavery as the reason they were leaving. It's all well and good today to declare that the whole thing was not about slavery, but that makes liars out of the southern legislators who said it was. Why, if they said in 1860 that they were taking their states out of the Union due to slavery, would we say they were lying about that now?

2. "it was about the south fighting the terroism of the government and taxes"

Oh? What act of terrorism would those be, exactly. Surely you can site some, if that was the causi belli? Any?

And regarding taxes, that's odd, as there was hardly any taxation before succession. The US was nearly completely funded on import excises at the time and there was no income tax at all until the war, as you no doubt are aware. Was the war over the import excise? I've never heard anyone claim that. If so, there's a huge irony in regards to that as the import excise is how the Confederacy funded their war effort. If the war was about income taxation, that'd be bizarre as the Confederacy would have had to have known in advance that the US would impose the first income tax in its history due to the Civil War. But for the South leaving, in other words there would have never been an income tax in the 19th Century, because as you know it was phased back out after the war was over.

And of course as you also no doubt know, the CSA in part got along by direct confiscation of some things such as horses and payment for them at below market rate while the North actually paid market rate for them. Many Southerners at the time resisted that effort of the Southern government due to a sense that it was unjust.

So, while you may happily be Confederate till your dying day, if these are your points, I'm sorry to say that the basis of your latent Confederate sympathies actually would make you, gasp, a Yankee. The war was in fact about slavery, the southern states aid so. Taxation was never part of the issue leading to war, and it was the South, through animal conscription, that hurt the average man the most.
Both of these comments are really off base, and the second one is an example of blistering ignorance.  And that's dangerous.
 
History is important

A knowledge of history, at least to some degree, is necessary to form a competent understanding of the present and your place in it.  If formed in ignorance, or with an inaccurate view of history, a person's world view will be ignorant at best and wrong at worst.  And in a democracy, to have an electorate that believes in a false past makes for a very dangerous present.

Perhaps no better example of that is provided than Nazi Germany.  In near record time Germany manged to convince itself that its loss in World War One was not on the battlefield but due to being "stabbed in the back", and that the Jews did the stabbing.  That was a complete and utter fantasy, but that fantasy lead to the death of millions.  A refusal to accept history, and recent history at that, helped blind and delude them to the reality of what they were doing in their present.  That blindness was lethal.

American blindness, and more specifically the blindness in the deep South, to horror of the Confederate cause and the absolute repugnant nature of slavery has been a ball and chain around the nation for over a hundred years and its been something that, if having not lead to a horror on the level of World War Two, has hindered the nation and broken out in lethal violence from time to time.  The sad thing is that the truth about the Southern cause is so easy to learn, even if we've been so unwilling to learn it.  And then we wonder why we still struggle with racism in 2017.
 
The fact that we don't know it is, and we should be disturbed by this, due to a massive propaganda effort by the patrician class of the South that commenced soon after the war and which reached its zenith just about a century ago.  That effort gives us a very real example of the losers in a war basically writing the history of it to a large degree, for a significant period of time, although they have never had the sole voice.  In the American South, however, they came to have nearly the only voice after a time, particularly as the aged participants in that war started to die and the monuments to the war and the Southern cause went up.  Histories in the South, monuments, state flags, and the like all operated to create a fictionalized account of the war that denied the very words of those who lead the South into war.  That fictionalized view has done untold damage and provides a perfect example of why teaching history is important, and why history needs to be history as it is, not as people wish it had been.

Aged Confederate dignitaries in front of the Jefferson Davis Monument in Richmond, Virginia, in 1907.

The American Civil War was about One Thing.  Race Based Slavery.

The Civil War was about one thing, and one thing only. It was about race based slavery. That is it.

Don't take my word for it, dear reader.  And for goodness sake, don't take your views from television, as Gen. Lee councils. Don't take your views from your collective set of friends either (hear that, General).  Read the words of those who actually took their States out of the Union and pitched them into war.  Here are the words departing states declared themselves, when I can find them (and I can find most of them) when they left, in the words of their own legislators on the bills (once you get nauseous from all the pro slavery stuff in this declarations, you can just skip to the bottom of them and go on to the next issue, if you choose):

South Carolina

South Carolina got the ball rolling.  It was first to depart. So surely it must have explained its liberal enlightened or tax based beefs in leaving. What did they have to say?

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union 
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue
And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.
The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.
If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that 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. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.
Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. 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.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860
Gosh, South Carolina seemed pretty upset about the North not liking slavery.  It's the only thing they referenced actually.

Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.

Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.
The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.
A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility.

The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.
These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.
These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861 
Gee, seems like Georgia was concerned about that $3,000,000 in property. . . the value that is, of the slaves.  Georgia left due to slavery.


Mississippi

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
Gosh, Mississippi was accusing the North of wishing for negro equality. . . . so they had to leave.


Texas

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,
The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.
By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.
When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.
By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.
For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.
Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.
Here again, it was about slavery.  Texas was upfront about what it's legislators thought, which is that blacks were slaves by nature, and the North was threatening that institution.

Virginia

THE SECESSION ORDINANCE.
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND TO RESUME ALL THE RIGHTS AND POWERS GRANTED UNDER SAID CONSTITUTION.
The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States
Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain that the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the Union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State. And they do further declare that the said Constitution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State.
This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day when ratified by a majority of the votes of the people of this State, cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule to be hereafter enacted.
Done in Convention, in the city of Richmond, on the 17th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the eighty-fifth year of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
JNO. L. EUBANK, Secretary of Convention
Well how about Florida?  Surely the land of sunshine, etc., didn't leave for such a base cause as slavery, right?

Florida.

The people of the State of Florida assembled in Convention having declared the separation of the state from the confederacy of the United States of America and resumed all the powers granted to the Government of that Confederacy, it is due to ourselves to our – late – confederates and to the civilized world that we should set forth the causes which have forced us to adopt this extreme measure fraught as it is with consequences the most momentous. We have not acted in haste or in passion but with the utmost deliberation and from what we regard as immeasurable necessity.
An incursion has been instigated and actually perpetuated into a sister State the inevitable consequences of which were murder rapine and crimes even more horrible. The felon chief of that murderous band has been canonized as a heroic martyr by public meetings by the press and pulpit of all of the Northern States – others of the party have been demanded by the Governor of the State they invaded and their surrender refused by the Governors of two States of the Confederacy, demanded not as fugitives from service but as fugitives from justice charged with treason and murder.
Laws clearly constitutional and as decided to be by the Federal Judiciary as well as by the Courts of all the non slaveholding States where the question has been presented for adjudication have been by counter legislation rendered inoperative, laws without the power to pass which none will deny that the Constitution would not have been adopted.
The nullification of these laws by the Legislatures of two thirds of the non slaveholding States important as it is in itself is additionally as is furnishing evidence of an open disregard of constitutional obligation, and of the rights and interests of the slaveholding States and of a deep and inveterate hostility to the people of these States.
The Congressional halls where the members should meet with fraternal feelings, a just regard for the interests of all the States there represented and respect for the feelings of all its members has been prostituted to the daily denunciation and vituperation of the slave holding States as sanctioning oppression robbery and all villainies, thus subjecting the members from these States to the degradation of gross and constantly repeated insults, and compelling the exclusion from our public press of the debates of our national Legislature or the circulation of the most incendiary matter.
By the agency of a large proportion of the members from the non slaveholding States books have been published and circulated amongst us the direct tendency and avowed purpose of which is to excite insurrection and servile war with all their attendant horrors. A President has recently been elected, an obscure and illiterate man without experience in public affairs or any general reputation mainly if not exclusively on account of a settled and often proclaimed hostility to our institutions and a fixed purpose to abolish them. It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act. This has never been charged by any one. But it has been announced by all the leading men and presses of the party that the ultimate accomplishment of this result is its settled purpose and great central principle. That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less. Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves.
It is in so many words saying to you we will not burn you at the stake but we will torture you to death by a slow fire we will not confiscate your property and consign you to a residence and equality with the african but that destiny certainly awaits your children – and you must quietly submit or we will force you to submission – men who can hesitate to resist such aggressions are slaves already and deserve their destiny. The members of the Republican party has denied that the party will oppose the admission of any new state where slavery shall be tolerated. But on the contrary they declare that on this point they will make no concession or compromise. It is manifest that they will not because to do so would be the dissolution of the party.
Additional territory is generally only acquired by conquest or purchase. In either case the slaveholding States contribute at least this equal proportion of men or money – we think much more than an equal proportion. The revenues of the General Government are almost entirely derived from duties on importations. It is time that the northern consumer pays his proportion of these duties, but the North as a section receiving back in the increased prices of the rival articles which it manufactures nearly or quite as much as the imposts which it pays thus in effect paying nothing or very little for the support of the government. As to the sacrifice of lives which recent acquisitions have caused how small is the proportion of Northern blood shed or laurels won in the Mexican war.
Last and not least it has been proclaimed that the election of a President is an authoritative approval of all the principles avowed by the person elected and by the party convention which nominated him. Although that election is made by little more than one third of the votes given. But however large the majority may have been to recognize such a principle is to announce a revolution in the government and to substitute an aggregate popular majority for the written constitution without which no single state would have voted its adoption not forming in truth a federal union but a consolidated despotism that worst of despotisms that of an unrestricted sectional and hostile majority, we do not intend to be misunderstood, we do not controvert the right of a majority to govern within the grant of powers in the Constitution.
The representative principle is a sufficient security only where the interest of the representative and the Constituent are identical with the variety of climate productions and employment of labor and capital which exist in the different sections of the American Confederacy creating interests not only diverse but antagonistic.
The majority section may legislate imperiously and ruinously to the interests of the minority section not only without injury but to great benefit and advantage of their own section. In proof of this we need only refer to the fishing bounties, the monopoly of the coast navigation which is possessed almost exclusively by the Northern States and in one word the bounties to every employment of northern labor and capital such a government must in the nature of things and the universal principles of human nature and human conduct very soon lead as it has done to a grinding and degrading despotism.
It is in no weak and imaginary fear of the consequences but that we regard them as certain and inevitable that we are prompted by every consideration of duty and honor and of policy to meet the issue now instead of leaving it to those who are to come after us who will be less able to vindicate their rights and honor, nor is it without the sincerest sorrow that we are about to separate from that noble band of patriots in the nonslaveholding states who have faithfully vindicated our Constitutional rights that we have been impelled by every consideration which should have influence with honorable men to declare our separation from the confederacy of the United States of America trusting for the maintenance of that declaration to the virtue courage and patriotism of our people and to that God who guided our fathers through similar trials and dangers.
Wow, Florida's declaration was incredibly racist.  The Union, it said, needed to add more slave states as the lazy blacks were only suited for that and were going to breed themselves into starvation.  Yikes!  A copy of A Modest Proposal anyone?

Well, what about Alabama, where we're informed they love the Governor?

Alabama was actually unique.  It didn't bother with a declaration like the rest of the departing Confederate "slave owing states".  It just passed an ordinance and called it good. But even there, with something that just basically says "we're leaving" (all the Southern states also passed an ordinance as well as a declaration), its plain.

Alabama

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Alabama and other States united under the compact styled “The Constitution of the United States of America.”
Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the officers of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the Constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security; Therefore,
Be it declared and ordained by the people of the State of Alabama in convention assembled, That the State of Alabama now withdraws, and is hereby withdrawn, from the Union known as “the United States of America,” and henceforth ceases to be one of said United States, and is, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and independent State.
SEC. 2. Be it further declared and ordained by the people of the State of Alabama in convention assembled, That all the powers over the territory of said State and over the people thereof heretofore delegated to the Government of the United States of America be, and they are hereby, withdrawn from said Government, and are hereby resumed and vested in the people of the State of Alabama.
Be it resolved by the people of Alabama in convention assembled, That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri be, and are hereby, invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama, by their delegates in convention, on the 4th day of February, A. D. 1861, at the city of Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security.
And be it further resolved, That the president of this convention be, and is hereby, instructed to transmit forthwith a copy of the foregoing preamble, ordinance, and resolutions to the Governors of the several States named in said resolutions.
Done by the people of the States of Alabama, in convention assembled, at Montgomery, on this the 11th day of January, A. D. 1861.
And so on.

Now, a person can try to put a pretty picture on this any way you want, but the message is repeatedly clear.  The South obviously feared that the North was interfering with slavery and the election of Lincoln meant that slavery would be capped in place and slowly eliminated. They couldn't have that, so they left.  Moreover, they rationalized slavery on the basis of racism and nothing else.

That was it.

Now, a person can try  to pretend otherwise, but there you have it.  The Southern declarations (or most of them, you can look up the rest) in their own words.  If you are an unreconstructed Confederate, so be it, but be aware that your cause was that of race based slavery, and nothing more.  To really believe in the Southern cause, then or now, you have to believe that blacks were inferior human beings who deserved, by their natures, to be slaves.
 
Well, um, what about that tax stuff Gen. Lee cites.  That must mean something. . . right?
 
Well a little, but not very significantly.
 
Economics
 
It is true that Southern declarations of secession referenced economic issues, but mostly in the context of a belief that the North was using economic policies to oppress the South due to slavery, or occasionally on the basis that the North was freeloading.
 
The truth of the matter is that there were differences in opinion on taxation and that taxation didn't fall evenly on every section of the country.  It never does.  But the war wasn't over that and that's pretty clear.  Indeed, while the South may have perceived that taxation was being imposed upon them punitively, the fact of the matter was that the South was largely able to fight the war without imposing new taxes, which was not the case for the North.
 
And why the South believed, where it did, that the North was benefiting from the public coffers where the South was not is not clear really.  Federal expenditures at the time were minuscule compared to today.  If more public projects were going on on the North its likely because the North was much more economically developed than the South, a situation that would continue on well into the 20th Century.  That wasn't the fault of the government, however.
 
For a variety of reasons, including arguably the existence of slave labor in the South, the North had started participating in the Industrial Revolution while the South was skipping it.   This came to mean that while most residents of the North were small farmers the North had a lot of industry as well and well developed, for the time, infrastructure.  The South, in contrast, had a population that was mostly made up of yeoman farmers but an economic system that heavily favored production agriculture, i.e., cotton (and tobacco).  The South had very little industry and very poor infrastructure.  

Now, I'm not hear to argue about whether its better in some philosophical way to have more yeomanry than industrial workers, or anything of the type.  But what is the case is that the South had a very skewed agricultural based economy. Almost all of the product of the South was agricultural and almost all of the wealth in society was generated by slave based production agriculture.  Most of the farmers, however, were yeoman on subsistence farms. This mean that the well off were those who owned land and slaves and planted cotton, and tobacco, while the average Southern was on the lower end of the economic scale and was engaging in subsistence agriculture with a marginal production crop.  Wealth was very unevenly distributed.  The wealthy, moreover, did not really benefit from a developed infrastructure so it just wasn't developed.  If Southerners felt that the North was getting more in the way of public improvements, such as they were, its' because the North was making them, while the South was avoiding them.

All of which means that from a Southern prospective the Civil War was truly a rich man's war and a poor man's fight, which was a fact appreciated by Southern soldiers at the time.  Latter day Confederates who wax romantic about the Lost Cause aren't looking at it the same way that so many Southern troops did, which is that they were asking to bleed for a class that didn't have to fight itself and stood to benefit from the war while they did not.  By the war's end Southern troops were deserting in droves.  After the war, in many places, they'd exist in tense hostility to the planter class that had sent them to war.  Latter day Confederates would do better to reflect on that fact.

If the war wasn't about slavery, how come only slave states left?
 
There were fifteen states in which slavery was legal in 1860.  Of those,  eleven clearly seceded from the Union and Confederacy claimed thirteen.  The states that did not leave, often called the "border states", were Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.  
 
Missouri split into a virtual internal civil war within its own borders during the American Civil War over whether it should stay or go, so it hardly provides an example of how there was "slavery in the north"
 
Maryland was in a position in which succession was a practical impossibly as it was the Union front line and there was no way it was going in spite of strong Confederate sympathies within it.  Furthermore, the administration had twenty seven Maryland legislators arrested early in the war which truncated any effort to leave, an action that was taken as Maryland's position was so strategic.  Chances are high that left to its own devices Maryland in fact would have succeeded.

Delaware was a slave state but slavery was on the way out within its borders and less than 2% of the states' population were slaves. A vote on the topic was held in the legislature but received very little support.

Kentucky was the only state that tried to act as a true neutral.  It voted to be a neutral and asked both sides to respect its borders.  The Confederacy, however, didn't (so much for the latter day term of "The War of Northern Aggression") and the legislature demanded that the Southern troops be evicted by force if necessary, putting Kentucky into the war on the Union side.
 
If, as Southern apologist claim, the war wasn't about slavery, how come only slave states left?  Not one single state that was not a slave holding state, anywhere, attempted to leave.  Wouldn't it make sense that if the war was about something other than slaver, some other state would have departed over that issue, whatever it supposedly was?

The cases of Tennessee and West Virginia.
 
Tennessee and Virginia did vote to leave the union, as is well known, but seemingly oddly less recalled is that large segments of the populations of those states, in regions were there slavery was not strong, voted to leave their states, or tried to.
West Virginia is the best example. Western Virginia was populated by yeomanry and there were few slaves within it.  The rest of the state was dominated economically by the slave holding planter class. When that class took Virginia out of the Union, the yeomen in the western part of the state took their part of the state out of Virginia.

This same thing was attempted by eastern Tennessee but the Confederacy managed to suppress it, arresting large numbers of people from that reason and holding them.  Once again, they were in a region where slave holding was rare.

If the Civil War was about something other than slavery, why did these two states break apart over the issue?

Oklahoma
 
Oklahoma wasn't a state at all and its situation is complicated and therefore its dangerous to draw too much of a conclusion from it, but in Indian Territory at that time slave owning was legal and practiced by various tribes.  Tribes that owned slaves showed an affinity for the Southern cause and contributed to the Confederate armies to a small extent.  That shows that the war was not only about slavery, but the feelings about holding on to it crossed cultures. That's a pretty strong indication of what the war was about.
Oklahoma, as Indian Territory, expected admission to the Confederacy as a slave holding state if the CSA won the war, which shows another clear way the war was about slavery.  Contrary to the assertion that the North invaded the South for some mysterious region, the South was actually territorially aggressive.  The South, with no prodding from the North, invaded Kentucky early in the war and no doubt expected it to leave the Union, while actually prodding it to do the opposite.  The South expected to pick up the Indian Territory.  And Confederate forces in Texas attempted to invade New Mexico with the expectation of adding that territory to the Confederacy.

Perhaps Florida's declaration of succession said it best.  The slave holding states, taking a page out of the earlier Intolerable Acts, were complaining that their "peculiar institution", slavery, was not being allowed to expand westward.  This was not only going to leave them out numbered in Congress, as they already were by that point, but it was also going to mean that they'd become increasingly outnumbered in Congress.  Moreover, the slave population in much of the South was quite larger and growing.  Florida's fears were no doubt held by many that you really can't keep a large population in bondage forever. . . the South wanted to export slavery westward to keep it alive.
 
Whose ancestors are being celebrated anyway?
 
Additionally, in choosing to revere one set of ancestors about the Antebellum South, Southerners who embrace the Lost Cause myth choose to blind themselves to another group, which is interesting and dangerous.
There are, of course, many Southerners today who had no relations of any kind living in the South during the Civil War. Be that as it may its really those who did who form the backbone of the concept of a glorious Southern cause. But the odd little secret there is that most of those same people have relatives who were slaves.

Concerning long term white residents of the South its estimated that 6% of their DNA is of African origin. That's not much, but what means is that almost every Southerner today who celebrates the Confederate cause had an ancestor at some point who was enslaved due to the same set of views.

The reverse is also true, FWIW. That is, for African Americans whose ancestors predated the Civil War in terms of residence, the vast majority are almost certainly likely to have European ancestors.  

So, today, there are no Southerners, or at least a minority of Southerners, who don't have a mixed heritage of black and white, slave and free.  To celebrate succession as if your own ancestors weren't held in bondage it to tell yourself a dangerous lie.

Now, nobody should really be surprised by this.  I'll wholly avoid the more controversial aspects of this and simply note that human nature, being what it is, was going to make that a fact.  The institution of slavery, at the same time, meant that it was a fact that was ignored even in plain sight at the time.

Most people now, for example, are familiar with the Sally Hemmings story to some degree.  And it provides a good example.

Sally Hemmings was a slave held, as is well known, by Thomas Jefferson and his wife Martha. Less well known or discussed, was that Sally's father was white and her mother was half white and  half black. That means that Sally was 3/4s of European descent and 1/4 of African descent.  She was also the half sister of Martha Jefferson.  That means that the Martha's family was keeping their own kin in bondage and that Martha brought to her marriage to Thomas her half sister, who was nearly as European as they were, into the marriage in bondage.

After Martha's death he fathered six children by Sally but never married her.  Such a marriage would have been, of course, impossible.  Those children, therefore, were 1/8th black and 7/8's European by descent.  Nonetheless they were held in bondage until after Jefferson died.  That they knew that he was their father was reflected by the fact that they used his last name.

Now, upon being freed they scattered to new locals, in part, and some simply omitted the fact that they had any African heritage. And, indeed, by that point their heritage was sufficiently remote that any physical indicator would likely have only been noticed had the fact been pointed out.  The condition of their prior servitude was shocking, to be sure, but the fact of it was known to them because it was known to them. To others it would not have been.

Scenes like this played out all over the South again and again.  It's common to consider this story in terms of rape, but its pretty clear that not all of these relationships met that definition by any means.  Jefferson's may very well not have. The ages between he and Sally were large, but that was not uncommon at the time.  A public marriage was out of the question but that does not mean that, in an age when the concept of common law marriages arising was strong, that all kinds of unions like this were not privately acknowledged at all sorts of levels. If Jefferson's reputation was not destroyed by the likely common local knowledge that this was occurring there's no strong reason to believe that in the backwoods where the yeomanry were that similar things did not occur.  It's perfectly possible to be highly biased on things and, at the same time, not react when they occur in your family. Turning a blind eye to conduct that was illegal in these regards was obviously fairly common over the years. The DNA evidence speaks too loudly to suggest otherwise.

I'm noting all of this because the insistence of some that the Southern cause was not about slavery mocks some of the very ancestors that those taking this position in the name of ancestor worship take.  The story of slavery is a horrific one, but its a complicated one.  Southern slaves were overall deprived of their liberty and treated horribly. They were murdered raped and abused. At the same time, however, some became members of the households they served and some, over the course of time, literally became part of the families that held others in bondage, both in reality and as a demographic. Whites and Blacks in the South today are all part of that story figuratively and, for many of them, genetically, whether they realize it or not. And that was true at the time of the Civil War itself.  Many of the men who marched off to protect slavery from abolishment were distant, or even not too distant, relatives of men on plantations who yearned to be freed.  That they didn't recognize that was in part a wilful act of self deception as what it meant was that the entire system was built on a vast lie.
 
Which takes me to my next point regarding the dead hands that many in the South feel should be able to control the story today.  I tend to think that the reality of the story, that the war was about slavery, tends to be taken by some as an argument that every white in the South including Southern soldiers who fought hard for years were uniformly evil men and therefore their ancestors are being slandered.  I'm not saying that.

Dead Southern infantryman.  Am I saying that he was an evil man who deserved to die?  No, I'm not.  I'm saying that he didn't deserve to die for a cause he probably had little say in and which was at its root an evil cause.

Southern soldiers undeniably put up a hard fight for years.  Their cause was a bad one, but that does not mean that they were necessarily bad men.
 
 
 Monument at Gettysburg to the high water mark of the Confederacy.

Most of them were frankly yeoman farmers who had little direct stake in the goals of the Confederacy at all.  The South conscripted soldiers, just like the North, and for most Confederate soldiers the options on going to war or not for a host of reasons were not all that optional.  They couldn't get deferments for going to graduate school or drive to Canada if they didn't want to serve in the war.  Living in small communities that were tight knit, by and large, if their fellows were going they were likely going to, irrespective of the cause or whether they agreed with the war.  That they fought hard was evidence that they were tough men and that they fought for each other, not necessarily that they held ardent beliefs about the cause.
 
 https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC7uMr4LhxjOIp7Cdt5-W429tPcSfkOkS0iE8mfXu0HmBnJtLOgSA6KrmYSyVKaifZaoZUnl1UyN7qCxX-4Y4fKBhw-xWKYn1Sqt3QBkZq23u_mVZ7IyqDjxC6h33NuSdSaxN4OwO8uoo/s1600/IMG_1163.JPG
North Carolina monument at Gettysburg.
 
Indeed the story of these same men after the war is largely overlooked.  After the Civil War, in many areas of the South, a near civil war smouldered for years between the yeoman class which had fought the war and the patrician class that had caused it. This was over the rights of the yeomanry to common land and hunting rights and was caused by the patricians operating not only to regain their pre war position in the Southern economy but to crowd out the yeoman class as well.  To associate the average Southern yeoman too strongly with the Southern patrician class is far too simple and tends to disregard the complicated reasons that the Southern yeoman class fought so hard for a cause that was so bad.

Nor should we be too quick to paint with too broad of brush concerning every Southern officer either. Their reasons for fighting for the CSA were also mixed.  Nor should we, however, fall into the error of the Lost Cause and pretend that those who lead the South in battle and into a horrible war did so for noble reasons based on independence and self reliance. That would be very far from true.

So, having addressed the points of Moss Robert, let us turn now to the arguments of our fried, Mr. Anonymous.
 
 
 Virginia Memorial at Gettysburg. ..  how the South sort of imagines the cause it fought for.
 
You can't have a democracy where people can't vote.
 
Our fried Anonymous used the classic pure democracy argument.  He put it this way:

Let's see. It was well and good for colonist to revolt against King George,but not ok for Americans in the South to seek independence for the same reasons? Slavery? Really? Week excuse for an invasion and war. The South voted to leave the Union and stated so by forming the Confederacy
 
I set forth my reply above, in detail, but let's break it down a bit.  First of all, did the "South" vote to leave the Union?

No, it didn't.

You can only take that position if you hold that blacks were intrinsically by nature not deprived to have a voice, which is exactly what the South actually held. But that's not the "South" voting. That was the white men of the South voting.  Indeed, where the white men of the South did not want to leave the Union, which in a considerably number of places, their votes were made not to count.  So, at the end of the day, it was the white patrician class of the South that voted to leave, not "the South".

Let's consider the actual demographics of the South.  Indeed, let's consider what percentage of the population of the Southern states was considered "black" at the time of the 1860 Census.  It's rather revealing.

Here's how that played out:

South Carolina:  57.2%
Mississippi:  55.2%
Florida:  44%
Alabama 45.1%
Georgia:  43.1%
Louisiana:  46.1%
Texas:  30.2%
Virginia:  30.7%
Arkansas:  25.5%
North Carolina: 33.4%
Tennessee:  24.8%

Pretty revealing.

Now lets also consider the "Border States" that did not secede and look at the percentages of their populations held in bondage as black slaves.
 
Kentucky:  19.5%
Maryland:  12.7%
Missouri:  9.7%
Delaware:  2%
 
Hmmmmm.
 
So now let us suppose that, in those slave holding states that "voted" to leave the Union the black male population had been given the same right to vote, as the white male population and that this had translated into actual delegates.  Is there a single one of those states that would have voted for secession?
 
It doesn't seem very likely.
 
Not, the South didn't vote to leave . .  the white slave owning patricians voted to leave. 

You can't argue for democracy if you don't extend it.

But that is in fact what the South had always done, a fact that they conveniently ignored then and now.  Indeed, they'd done it since 1787 when they were given more votes in Congress than they were proportionally entitled to.

Eh?

Exactly right.  In spite of the whining by the Southern secessionist that their rights were being trampled by the nineteen non slave holding states, that trampling actually was a demand that the North not act according to the democratic impulses of their own residents and acquiesce to the demands of Southern states. This had first occurred in force when the South insisted that the black population of the South be counted for purposes of apportionment in the House of Representatives even though blacks could not vote.  This lead to the 3/5s Compromise, which read:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, 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.
That compromise was utter hypocrisy.  Representatives in Congress from those states were not representing the non voting interests of the "three fifths of all other Persons" held in bondage, but the South's vote was enormously boosted none the less.  Consider a State like South Carolina'.  Its representation in Congress would have been half of what it was had only those eligible to actually vote in an election been counted for purposes of that Representation.

Which takes us to. . . 
The madness of King George
 
 King George III.  His views on his rights, or at least Parliament's view on its rights, were closer to the South's view of its "rights" than the North's on its actions, although a lot of the example of the Revolutionary War has no actual application to the Civil War.
 
Our friend Anonymous cites to the Revolution against the United Kingdom (it wasn't really against King George personally) as a precedent to the South's revolution against the Union.  But the precedent isn't a very good one in numerous ways.

Fortunately for us, those looking at the historical record, the Continental Congress was kind enough to leave us a list of the reasons that they decided to leave the patronage of the Mother Country, just as most of the Southern States did the same when they left.  That list has been termed The Intolerable Acts.  Here's what they had to say,.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Now, many of these have no relation to the secession of the Southern States ninety years later at all.  For example, nobody was being transported across the seas for their offenses. But those Intolerable Acts that are relevant mostly cut against the argument posed by the South.

A big part of the thirteen Colonies' beef with the United Kingdom related to Parliament passing laws and imposing taxes upon the colonies without the colonies having any representation in Parliament.  If the Continental Congress is to be believed, and there's no reason that we should doubt them, their complaint wasn't that the laws could be imposed, but rather that they were imposed without the colonies having a vote, or rather votes, in Parliament about them.  If the Parliament had said, "well, okay, we'll give you seats in Parliament" (a wholly unrealistic hypothetical), for the most part, the American complaints would have been fully addressed.  For example, these acts were amongst those found to be intolerable:

None of that was true for the Southern states. They had the vote in Congress and in fact in the House of Representatives their vote was artificially enormously boosted by the counting of slaves, who had no vote, as "3/5s" of a person.  The only reason that slavery existed for so long after the Revolution is that the Southern legislative advantage had worked up until 1860.  Only then, at which time nineteen states were "free" and it was clear that no more slave states would exist, did the South complain about feeling at an elective disadvantage to the point that they'd leave and take the country into war.

Even then, the complaint wasn't that "we have no voice".  Rather, they complaint was with the democratic process itself.  Free states refused to cooperate with slave states, on the free state's own soil. That was their right as a state, i.e., it spoke in favor of "state's rights", but the South didn't like it. And it was clear that each new admission into the Union, and they were coming, was going to bring in only free states who did not sympathize with slavery's' expansion, or with slavery itself.  It was democracy, not the lack of it, that the South feared.
If the logic of most of the applicable set of Intolerable Acts is therefore applied to 1860s, that is if we look at the reasons we declared independence in 1776 and apply that logic to 1860, it was the South that was acting in a right which mandated a democratic and free people intervene. But the North never did any such thing. Rather, the Southern states determined to leave to avoid the meaning of democracy, not the other way around.

So, what does it matter?

Quite a bit, really.
[T]he greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property—justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people—was not exacted from them.
Gen. George Henry Thomas, U.S Army general from Virginia, 1868.

The fraud perpetrated on Southerners by the foisting, as a dedicated effort, of the concept of a noble cause grounded in liberty rather than a racist cause grounded in slavery and nothing else acted to retard he healing of the wounds of war and, more important, the wounds of slavery from 1865 until this very day.  The denial that the war was caused by the South and fought by the South as part of a dedicated effort to keep over 1/3d of the Southern population in chains required that the root of the cause itself, racism, had to be tolerated and even excused.  The problem remains amazingly persistent to this very day even though we occasionally believe that we have overcome it, and we have in fact made great strides.  The Lost Cause Myth operated to camouflage the fact that black and white Americans and in particular black and white Southerners have much more in common than separates them and, indeed, black and white Southerners are not only the figurative products of their past but more often than not the literal one, i.e., they are kin but don't realize it.

The lie of the Lost Cause also has served to blind its adherents to a  history of the war and to the times that produced it, and followed it, that could and should provide very real lessons in modern times.  Rather than an example of fierce self reliance and independence the Southern effort was an example of a massive political advantage being gained by an economic elite that manipulated events to their end, both before and after the war.  That the Lost Cause Myth even exists as a widely belief myth is testimony of that success of that class's effort.  The entire history of the yeoman class in the end was swallowed by the lie the patrician class advanced and the lessons that history could and should teach us is likewise nearly lost.

Those who would honor the men of the South who fought the Civil War would do best to honor them the way they really were by recalling them as they were, and the nature of that war as it really was.

Confederate infantryman.  Those who would honor him would do well by remembering the war as it really was, what it was really about, and what his place in the world really was.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Note: This entry has something odd going on in terms of formatting in that quite a bit of the text is in bold when I'd rather it not be.  Unfortunately,  it doesn't show up when I go to edit and the format of the blog therefore won't allow me to correct that.

It is distracting, but, unfortunately, cannot be addressed.

Monday, October 16, 2017

Oh great. A new war in Iraq?

The news reports today the following:
Iraqi government forces have captured key installations outside the disputed city of Kirkuk from Kurdish fighters.
A military statement said units had taken control of the K1 military base, the Baba Gurgur oil and gas field, and a state-owned oil company's offices.
Baghdad said the Peshmerga had withdrawn "without fighting", but clashes were reported south of Kirkuk.
The operation was launched a month after the Kurdistan Region held a controversial independence referendum.
The Kurds are the most politically competent group in the region and also the largest stateless people on earth. They're light infantry, in terms of military force, however.

And they also ran a decades long guerilla war against the Turks.

This would not appear to bode well.

An example of what's wrong with American tort law. The Las Vegas Shooting. . .let the tort cases begin.

An email list on legal events in Texas reports that a lawsuit has already been filed stemming from the recent shooting in Las Vegas. That story reported:
The plaintiff, a California college student who was wounded in the Oct. 1 Las Vegas mass shooting, has sued the hotel, the concert promoter, a gun accessory manufacturer and the estate of the alleged shooter.
Okay, I agree that an suit exists against the estate of the shooter. That's clear.  Indeed, that suit will be completely depleted in payouts due to such suits, I'm sure.

But as to "the hotel, the concert promoter, a gun accessory manufacturer". . . . hmmmm.

I suppose, in the heated climate we're now in, a person can argue about the bump stock manufacture, but I find that a rather dubious argument.  It's like arguing that the manufacturer of a hot car used in a robbery is liable for theft.  Or should the entire alcohol industry be liable for violence in the United States in general, given as it so strongly associated with all types of it?  Maybe the American Psychiatric Association should be liable for darned near everything in the United States by excusing all known conduct of every type and categorizing everything as something that you need a fluffy bunny for.

But the hotel?

Give me a break.

And the same with the concert promoter.

Bull.

Indeed, on the latter, the story is that the promoter had pretty good security in place.  Concert attendees weren't allowed to enter with arms. That would, in some circumstances, open up the debate about concealed arms, and one of the members of one of the bands did make a rather dim comment along those lines in favor of gun control to the effect that their concealed arms back in the bus did not good (no kidding, by the same line of reasoning the New Jersey State Highway Patrol also did no good, as they weren't there).  Anyhow, you'd sometimes seen an argument here that if only the attendees had been carrying concealed arms this wouldn't have happened or wouldn't have been as bad as it was, but no concealed handgun is going to be effective from somebody so distant shooting from an elevated position, obviously.  That doesn't mean of course that more concealed arms in something like the Florida terrorist attack from awhile back, and it was a terrorist attack, wouldn't have been quite helpful.  Anyhow, the suggestion that the concert promoters are supposed to anticipate this scenario is stupid.   The fact that lawyers advance such claims is not helpful.

Nor is blaming the hotel. Granted, I earlier wondered how on earth, and I still don't have an answer, this fellow got so many arms up in a hotel room. That's weird. But is it negligent?  It''s surprising, but I don't think it's negligent in any sense.  It''ll only be actionable properly, in my view, if the shooter had an accomplice on the hotel staff, and even that wouldn't normally be actionable as that would clearly be an improper act outside of his employment.  Unless we have a development here that we don't know about yet, I don't see it.

Which doesn't mean these things don't have an impact.

This is horrible, but we shouldn't litigate ourselves into a situation in which concerts can only be held in Death Valley and viewed by an audience that's largely naked or something.  Nor should we create a situation where you have to go through a metal detector in order to enter your hotel.  For that matter, hotels shouldn't be required to disarm their guests, I've been in plenty of hotels where I wished I might have a little personal backup quite frankly and I have experienced entries into my own residences, in prior places I lived, more than twice.  Self help can be a good thing in the real world.

Recently in some depositions a break occurred in which the Plaintiff's lawyer began to wax philosophic about our occupation and muse about how much we (lawyers) operated to change things, listing some. The only one I can recall is windows in Confessionals (which is a development I detest).  He then went on to note how much our occupation had improved things, and to ask "don't you agree?".  I replied "I don't think that at all".

We have, I think.

But the profession hurts things too. Stuff like this provides an example of the mechanism by which we do that.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Lex Anteinternet: The Miracle of the Sun, October 13, 1917.

A rare Sunday Morning Rerun.

As in, I think, the first ever.  

But we just ran this on its anniversary a couple of days ago, and therefore its appropriate.

Lex Anteinternet: The Miracle of the Sun, October 13, 1917.:



Yesterday we reported on the soggy First Battle of Passchendael, an event so wet that artillery fire proved ineffective and the New Zealand army accordingly had the worst day in its history.

I don't know how widespread the October rains were in 1917, but I do know that it had been wet in Portugal as well, as that's well recorded in regards to the Miracle of the Sun, the final 1917 event associated with the Marian apparitions at Fatima, Portugal, that year.


As noted here earlier, there had been an entire series of reports of Marian Apparitions in 1917, most of which occurred at Fatima but one report of which occurred in Russia.   This event is distinctly different from the earlier events as it was widely viewed by numerous people and came on the date that had been predicted by the three peasant children who had been reporting the Portuguese apparitions.

By this point, the Fatima apparitions had been receiving press reports and accordingly it had been reported that the peasant children had related that the vision of the Lady they had been seeing had promised a miracle so that "all may believe".  Large crowed accordingly gathered on the day of the predicted miracle.  The day was rainy but the clouds broke and the sun appeared to dance in the sky, an event reported by thousands of people.  People whose clothes had been sodden found their clothes dry, and clean, immediately after the event, a phenomenon even experienced by residents of a nearby village who had not attended the gathering.  A pile of rosaries that had become entangled on the ground near where the children reported the Marian apparition had appeared earlier were picked up immediately after and were untangled.

There are of course skeptics concerning the event and while even Catholics are not obligated to believe that it occurred, it is unique due to being experienced on a very widespread basis and, further, to have included more than a visual apprehension that something was occurring and to be experienced by people nearby who were not part of the gathering and who had even been inattentive to it.  Portuguese poet Afonso Lopes Vieira reported, for example, "On that day of October 13, 1917, without remembering the predictions of the children, I was enchanted by a remarkable spectacle in the sky of a kind I had never seen before. I saw it from this veranda".  It was also unique in not being limited to merely a visual experience, but to also feature numerous and distinct physical expressions.  If it was a mass hallucination, as some have claimed, it was an odd one indeed being experienced by over 10,000 people and to include their sight, smell and their clothing.
As an aside, the location of this event, Fatima, is a town  named for Fatimah bint Muhammad, the youngest daughter of Muhammad, according to Shia Muslims.  She was the only daughter of Muhammad and Khadijah. She was, in her adult years, the oldest of Muhammed's children.

Khadijah was the only one of Muhammad's wives to which he was married monogamously.  He only took up polygamy after her death.  She was married three times and Muhammad was her last husband.  She is known to have been a Catholic, and its known that her uncle was a Gnostic Priest.  Based upon what little is known of her, her Catholic nature seems to have held sway in significant ways in the household.  It's claimed by Muslims that she was the first convert to Islam, but given what little is known about Muhammad (to include even his name), this is quite questionable and indeed the contemporary nature of Muhammad's religious mission is open to question as well.  It may in fact be the case, and indeed likely was, that their marriage was Catholic in form (which would not have required a Priest at the time) and she maintained her Faith throughout their marriage.  Indeed, there is not insignificant evidence that Muhammad picked up elements of it and Gnosticism through his marriage to her and he may in fact have really been a type of Gnostic at one time, and perhaps for the rest of his life.

Assuming, anyhow, that what we know if his family life is correct (which is open to some question) Fatima was his oldest child to survive childhood and the only child of that marriage to make it to adulthood.  Of interest, she married Ali, Muhammad's cousin, but that marriage, like that of her mother's, was monogamous during her lifetime.  She would be one of seven of Ali's wives, but all the others followed her death. This again raises strong questions on what her beliefs were, and its known that she had rejected many suitors prior to Ali.  Anyhow, there's reason to believe that she had either absorbed much of her mother's Catholic faith or that she may also have actually been Catholic, a statement which would horrify most Muslims but which explains much of what is actually known about her.

This region of Portugal was conquered by the Muslims, quite obviously, who named the town after the person.  It was in turn taken back during the Reconquista.  More than one believer who has studied the Marian Apparitions at Fatima have pondered the choice of location and wondered about it.  Muslims have a fairly strong appreciate of Mary and there's been those who wondered if the Apparitions occurrence in some ways relates to a different type of Reconquista

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Vietnam and the Law of Unintended Consequences: The AR15

I've been writing a lot, in contravention to our recent focus on 1915-17 in a distinct, sometimes daily, way, about the Vietnam War.  Indeed, it's always been an interest of mine and I have have several other threads in the hopper.

This one is one that I've hesitated to write about as I'm well aware that its really controversial.  So much so that it sparks rage in some people on both sides of a debate that rapidly become so vitriolic that they aren't part of a debate at all.

I speak of the AR15 rifle.

Long winded vitriolic introduction

 Paratrooper in Vietnam armed with M16A1 rifles.  This trooper seems to have a cleaning brush sticking through the front swivel.  That's something I've never seen a photo of before, but in some photos you can see the assembled cleaning rods, designed to be carried disassembled in the stock, sticking through the ventilation holes of the front grip to be used an emergency ramrod in case the weapon jammed.

Now, let me note right away, this isn't a debate about gun control or "gun violence" (that odd newspeak category of violence).  If you want to read my views on that you can read my several other threads that touch on it.*  No, this is about the law of unintended consequences.

Eh?

Yes, exactly.

And for that, we need a little background about the AR15 and the M16, one of Robert S. McNamara's gifts to the military that just keeps on giving.

And if a person wonders what I mean by that, I don't like the M16.  And yes, I have personal experience with the M16, or rather I should say a variety of those jamming plastic and steel direct impingement second rate assault rifles, if that's what it is, the M16A1.**

 Me, with one of the several M16A1s I carried at one time or another doing stuff similar to this. This photograph was taken in South Korea.  This M16A1 was not made by Colt.  It was made by General Motors Hydramatic Division.  It was one of the better ones I used over the years and I can't recall this one jamming.

Now,  just saying that in that fashion will send some people into cardiac arrest.  The "American Rifle", or whatever its being called today, has come to absolute dominate a large section of the rifle market.  And I think it's junk.  Well, if not junk, it has problems.

And I don't mean in a "they should be banned" sense.  I mean that in a "they don't like to work" sense.

Vietnam War Era manual for the soldier on the M16A1.  This manual was still in use in the early 80s when I was in the National Guard, but it was being phased out at that time by a less teenagerish version.  This document is interesting in that the Army thought it had to publish a cartoon book in order to get soldier to read the manual.  It's also interesting in that it was drawn by famous cartoonish Will Eisner, who had military experience, but who used the stock grizzled sergeant as a stock character. By this time during the Vietnam War a lot of Sergeant E-5s weren't much older than the privates.  The actual book itself featured a cartoon buxom female character was was drawn as if she was right out of Terry and the Pirates, which probably wasn't too relevant to a generation that thought Jane Fonda and various Playboy victims were the model of feminine beauty.

This was well known in Vietnam and it's the fault of the design, contrary to what latter day legions of apologist say about the rifle.  One of the best minor monuments of the recent Burns and Novik documentary on the war, in my view, came when Marine Corps veteran John Musgrave called it a piece of junk.  It was still well known in the 1980s when we lubricated the weapon with gallons of banana scented Break Free to make sure it'd work.  And it's been a consistent complaint about it in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It's the reason that piston variants like the HK416 show up in special use and the gas system weaknesses are why nobody else in the world attempts to field an assault rifle that features that gas system.

 Philippine Army soldiers armed with a HK416, a piston using variant of the AR that cures its feeding problems. This version was designed by the German firm of Hecklar & Koch and has been widely used around the world, including by the United States in the hands of special troops.

We ought to replace it.

But we don't.

And yes, none of that is what I'm writing about here, although its related.

Part of the reason, I suspect, that we don't replace the M16/M4 weapons is that the service buys them.

Well of course, you say, how else would they get them?

Well, prior to the M16A1 the service's standard rifles weren't purchased, as a rule, usually. They were made by the Government. And that's what the point of this post is.

And its an interesting example of the law of unintended consequences.  Maybe.

Bear with me, I'm getting there.

A civilian item has to be marketed.

The M16A4/A5 and M4 carbines the Armed Forces use today came about as developments of the earlier rifles, the most significant of which is the M16A1. The M16A1 was a Vietnam era corrective improvement of the design of the M16 most significantly featuring a big plunger that allowed a soldier to jam the bolt home when it jammed as one more shot is better than none at all.

The M16 was a military selective fire variant of the AR15, sometimes inaccurately called the "Colt AR15".  The AR15 itself was a 5.56 (or .223 if you prefer) development of the AR10, the original design.

 The original variant of the AR10 with wrapped fiberglass stock and realty weird flash hinder.  The AR10 has seen a revival after having truly been dead in that it has come back into the service as a designated marksman rifle.  While I do not like the ARs, this makes a lot of sense as its very similar to the rifle otherwise in service and it is quite accurate.  "Joe Loong - originally posted to Flickr as DSCF1108 CC BY-SA 2.0 File:AR-10 in the National Firearms Museum.jpg."

The AR10 was the brainchild of Fairchild engineer Eugene Stoner.  Stoner was out to design an assault rifle that could be manufactured cheaply using the newest in World War Two technology and Fairchild was looking for ways to exploit that technology.

Yes, its' that old.

 Stg44 (or in this case a MP 43/1) using optical sight, which most did not, and featuring stamped receiver and in some instances a plastic butt stock.  Almost everything about this World War Two era German assault rifle was every bit as modern as the features of the AR15/M16.  CC BY-SA 3.0 de File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1979-118-55, Infanterist mit Sturmgewehr 44.jpg Created: 31 December 1942

Anyhow, Stoner's idea was to make a cheap assault rifle out of stamped steel and plastic.  It these regards it wasn't really revolutionary as the world's first assault rifle, accepted as such, ultimately came to do that as well.  Stoner's design also omitted any sort of advance gas system, such a a piston or block, and simply blew tapped gas back on a cup machined on top of a bolt carrier and then vented into the action.  In this fashion it wasn't revolutionary either, as a semi automatic rifle used by the Swedes during World War Two (in which they were neutral) also used it.  Like the M16, it had performance problems.

If you think, gee, that's going to get things pretty dirty, you'd be right.

Anyhow, at some point this branch of Fairchild, Armalite, separated from Faichild and the company went about trying to market the AR10 with limited success after entering the competition for a new battle rifle for the United States and not prevailing in it.***  Some were in fact purchased and even used in combat in distant regions of the globe, with the example of Portuguese paratroopers in Angola perhaps being the most significant.  It might be noted that the Portuguese have always shown an affinity for eclectic weapons choices and, at the same time, their officers were carrying Luger's in combat, which would make most people knowledgeable about modern weapons gasp.

Anyhow, also in the 1950s the United States was also experimenter with .22 caliber rifles, which things chambered in .222 and .223 are.  Not .22 LR, of course, which is the most common little tiny cartridge on earth, but centerfire .22 caliber weapons.  

It was an experiment.

At the time the US had just adopted the M14 rifle, which it made.

And that gets to one of our first really big salient points.

The government had designed and made the M14.

 Paratrooper in Vietnam with M14 rifle.  While its seemingly been forgotten, the US Army was equipped with the M14 at the start of the Vietnam War, as were the Marines.  The Air Force was still equipped with the M1 Garand, as was the Navy.  The Guard and Reserve was completely equipped with M1 Garands.

We're in the late 1950s at this point.  But let's explore that, as that's a hugely significant point in our essay of today. The government had made and designed the M14.

Indeed, the U.S. Government had made every principal standard longarm it had equipped its military with since the foundation of the country.  That was the system.  Longarms, such as rifles and muskets, were made in government arsenals.  They were usually, indeed almost always, designed by government employees.  In the rare instances in which they were not designed by government employees, such as with the Krag series of rifles and carbines, the U.S. Government bought a license to produce them and then made them, itself, under license.

The only exceptions to this in any form came normally during big wars, or with small purchases.  So, for example, prior to the Civil War you will find that the Army bought small lots of Sharps carbines.  Small lots.  During the Civil War the Army bought everything going, but the Civil War was a really big war.  During the Indian Wars the Army bought small lots of experimental weapons, but didn't adopt them, and then the Navy and Marine Corps bought relatively small lots of Remington made Lees at various points up to and during the Spanish American War (the United States, not the United Kingdom, was the first nation on earth to equip itself in any fashion with a Lee rifle. . . take that SMLE fans).  During World War One the Government contracted for huge lots of M1917 Enfields and bought small lots of Mosin Nagants (that had been rejected by the Imperial Russian inspectors, who must have been delusional given the circumstances their nation was under).  

And so on.

But for long arms, the big story was Springfield Armory. To a lesser extent, and at different times, the story was also Rock Island Arsenal and Harpers Ferry Arsenal.

Now, if this is a bit shocking in our super glory of the free market era, we should note that this wasn't unusual at all and wasn't limited to longarms.  The government also manufactured artillery (it isn't like there's a big civilian market for it, after all).  It made saddles by the thousands as well, for which there was a big civilian market, and all sorts of tack.  Prisoners in Ft. Leavenworth made bad footwear for the Army for many years.  At one point between World War One and World War Two the government manufactured 6x6 trucks. . . nobody else was making them and the artillery branch needed them.

 Cavalrymen at Ft. Riley Kansas, 1940.  The pack and riding saddle that are in this photo were both types manufactured by the government itself.

It's also worth noting that there were certain things the government didn't make, and some of them were surprising.  The government quit making handguns sometime prior to the Civil War.  The introduction of Colt revolvers seems to have caused that to come about. Whatever it was, they had made them, and they just quit.  And the U.S. military actually uses a surprising number of handguns.  The U.S. military also never made very many machineguns, which is odd.  It did try to come up with one during World War Two but a production goof made that example lousy, and it had made a few prior to World War One.. The one and only machinegun it ever tried to field that was its own design was the M15/M14E1, a light machinegun variant of the the M14, and it wasn't very good.  The M14 was excellent, but the M14E1 wasn't.

During this entire time the US never made a really bad longarm.  It made some that didn't quite pan out, such as the Krag, and some that were so so, like the trapdoor Springfield's, but it never made a really awful longarm, which is remarkable.  And when things didn't quite pan out, because they made them, they usually reacted pretty quickly as a rule, although the long history of the trapdoor runs contrary to that. 

And then came the AR15 and Robert McNamara.

 Robert S. McNamara.

When the US entered the Vietnam War, it sent its troops in with M14s, which were just coming into service. They were so new, and there were so few, that the National Guard never received them.  And they worked fine.  

We were, as another thread explores here in depth, also supplying our ally, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, with weapons.  The ARVN didn't get M14s, they got, and had been getting for some time, M1 Garands (another great U.S. arsenal design) and M1/M2 Carbines (a World War Two design by Winchester that was in fact acquired by contract from civilian manufacturers and which was, in fact, not a very good military weapon).

And then came in the USAF.

From 1948 when it was created up until, well, forever, the USAF has had sort of weird price of place in military acquisitions.  The Air Force generally, but not always, gets what it wants.  And it decided that airmen would have been way too burdened to guard air bases in Vietnam equipped with M1 Garands (which is what they would have had, M14s wouldn't have caught up with the Air Force yet) and therefore it would buy the new, super sexy, AR15 in a selective fire form.

 
World War Two vintage poster depicting tough combat infantryman with an M1 Garand.  The Air Force didn't want the M1 to do its talking in Vietnam.

Which takes us back to the AR10 and the .223. 

The experiment I noted above resulted in various entities, and Springfield Armory, coming up with .223 designs to be tested. Winchester made a rifle that was based on the M1 Carbine, which is a fairly lousy military weapon but which does function fine.  Its product was a lot like the later Ruger Mini14.  Springfield Armory again adapted, albeit half halfheartedly, the Garand action that was used for the M1 Garand and the M14 to the .223 and also came up with a weapon that bears a strong resemblance to the later Ruger Mini14.  Armalite adapted the AR10. As Winchester later lamented, the AR15 looked "sexy".

The Army yawned and the halfhearted effort of Springfield Armory showed that it never thought the .223 was going to go anywhere anyway, but the Air Force said "Golly Gee Bob!.  Look at that nifty thing". and adopted it.  As Armalite's production capacity was nonexistent Colt, taking a gamble as it was really a pistol manufacture, bought the rights to Stoners design.  So Colt fell into a military contract in 1963 when the U.S. Air Force, not the U.S. Army, bought AR15s to equip its men in Vietnam with.****  Right around the same time the Secret Service also bought AR15s.  Indeed, if you look closely at the famous video footage of John F. Kennedy's assassination, you can see that a Secret Serviceman in the car behind Kennedy's is carrying an AR15.

Now, the real irony of this is that the Air Force is the service that's least qualified to decide anything about small arms and in truth perimeter security in Vietnam would have been just as readily served by men carrying M1 Garands.  Heck, it would have been better served. The Air Force didn't need M16s and it shouldn't have received them.  It was patently absurd.  Compounding the problem, however, the Army's Special Forces took some M16s and heaped lavish praise on them, the recipients of the praise forgetting that special troops are notoriously able to make use of weapons that regular soldiers cannot.

This combined result then operated to convince William C. Westmoreland, whom we've recently otherwise read about, to urge the ordering of what had then been adopted as a limited standard as the M16 by the Army of the Republic of Vietnam.  There was some logic to his decision.  For one thing, the ARVN soldiers were tiny.  The M1 Garand which they were supplied with by the United States was huge and the alternative M1/M2 Carbine was ineffective.  The M16 seemed just the ticket.

The ARVN was not impressed.  While Americans have heaped condemnation on the ARVN for decades many ARVN troops saw years and years of combat and they weren't actually asking for new small arms.  When they received the M16 they were amongst the first to discovery that it jammed, and jammed badly. They were convinced that the Americans were giving them junk that the Americans themselves weren't using. That was soon to change.


 ARVN Rangers during the Tet Offensive.  Some ARVN units fought well throughout the Vietnam War including special units such as this.  By Tet, the ARVN on the whole was fighting well and most of its troops were equipped with M16A1s, although you still find examples of them carrying M1 Carbines right to the end of the war.

Coincident with the first ordering of the M16 there were teething problems with the production of M14s.  In retrospect they weren't all that bad and even recent US military history at the time should have revealed that.  There had been teething problems with the M1903 Springfield and the M1 Garand as well.  Production capacity limits meant that the M1903 never was fully replaced during World War Two in spite of a massive effort to manufacture M1 Garands.  During World War One production limits had lead to the as many M1917s being made as M1903s. So this wasn't really new.  More than enough M14s existed to equip the active duty Army and Marine Corps, even if the reserves did nto receive them. But they were practically new.  Nonetheless McNamara had the production of M14s stopped.

This was a monumentally boneheaded move and this alone deserves to rate Robert Strange McNamara as a Department of Defense disaster.  Springfield Armory dated back to the early history of the country, and now it was idled and no M14s were being made.  M16s, on the other hand, were coming in from Colt and would soon be licensed by Colt to other companies as production for the Vietnam War heated up.  It was soon decided to equip US soldiers in Vietnam with the rifle.



Problems rapidly developed, although they were problems the ARVN was already aware of.  The gun jammed and people were getting killed.  The immediate solution was to come out with the A1 variant of the rifle, the M16A1, which featured a large plunger that struck the bolt to close it in an emergency.  This didn't solve the problem but it did mean that there was at least the hope of not getting killed if the rifle jammed up in combat.^

 Paratrooper cleaning an M16 in 1966, at which time it was still an experimental arm.

The M16A1 was not well received.  Marine Corps units avoided using it as long as possible  by shifting M14s to units in the field and M16s back to the rear. This went on until the M14s had been withdrawn and they just couldn't get away with it any longer. The Army, being larger, never had that opportunity and so it went right into front line units  The initial results were disastrous as the new weapon locked up like a drum in combat.  People with long memories recalled after the 7th Cavalry Regiment of the 1st Cavalry Division ran into trouble with the weapon at Ia Drang in 1966 that the same regiment had experienced fatal weapons jams nearly a century earlier at Little Big Horn due to the copper cartridges used by the Army in the action sticky trapdoor Springfield at that time.

New orders requiring "Tiger" to prodigiously clean the weapon constantly, prodigious lubrication and a switch in powder for ammunition partially alleviated the problem but it's never gone away.  Oddly, the current M4 Carbine is reported to jam more than the M16A5, showing that they both jam, but the carbine inexplicably jams more.  But the M16 has kept on keeping on.

That was in part because in 1968 the Secretary of Defense had Springfield Armory closed for good.

Springfield Armory had been mounting a rear guard action against the M16 ever since it had been introduced.   The M16A1 was standardized in 1967 and the M16 had been ordered to replace the M14 by McNamara at least two years earlier.  So the United States lost a manufacturing capacity for small arms, by the military itself, that it had since 1777.

A private industrial concern

The closing of Springfield Armory, the replacement of the M14 by the M16, and the utilization of a private contractor for the first time in the nation's history to supply all of the nation's small arms need created a situation that was unprecedented.


Prior to the M16, the US had never had to rely solely upon private industry for the supply of muskets or rifles.  Privately produced longarms had existed before, of course, but never without the Government itself making the established standard longarm.  Privately produced longarms were the exception to the rule, sometimes a huge exception to the rule, but an exception.  As noted, this wasn't the case for handguns and that would soon prove to be the model for what would next occur.

Just as it had never been the case that the nation had been without a longarm manufacturing arsenal, it had also not been the case for years that a major private manufacturing plant was left making a military model of weapon with only one customer, the military end user.  It had happened before during wartime of course.  Various companies had made M1903s, M1s and M1 Carbines, amongst other weapons, for the U.S. Government during wartime.  But the last instance of this happening had been during the Korean War when contracts for M1 Garands had been put out. Granted, that had not been a long time prior.

Colt, for its part, had a spotty history with longarms and was really a handgun manufacturer.  It had tried to introduce longarms from time to time but rarely with any kind of success.  Suddenly, however, in the early 1960s it found itself owning a longarms that was in sudden demand by the US. Soon thereafter, it owned the rights to what was now the standard US rifle, the first time in history that a private company had been in that position, although it must not have been a sole manufacturing right given the later history of what occurred.  The M16 would prove to be an economic boon to Colt.

Colt had always had the policy of selling the same models of pistols it manufactured for the Service to civilians. This had long been its custom. And indeed, it was often the case that a newly adopted military model was available to civilians slightly before it was delivered to the military.  With that being the history, it's no surprise what happened next.  In 1964 Colt started manufacturing the rifle for civilian sales as the AR15 Sporter.

That shows how vast the production capacity of Colt really was at the time.  Colt was fulfilling military orders for the M16 and yet was still able to manufacture AR15s for civilian sales.  Having said that, the AR15 received a bit of a mixed civilian reception at the time.

It had been a very long time since a major American firearms manufacture had offered the pure military version, nearly, of a military longarm for civilian purchase and it had never been the case that an American manufacture had offered what was the primary military longarm for civilians sales. That's a bit nuanced, however, as Springfield Armory had been the manufacture of that weapon since 1777 and it had done that on a periodic basis.  Springfield Armory offered a customized sporting version of the Trapdoor Springfield rifle to soldiers (officers were the primary customers) in the 19th Century and it had sold M1903s to civilians in various versions from 1903 until 1939.  Target variants of the full military M1903 were the most common to be sold by Springfield Armory to civilian customers but actions were also commonly sold for sporting rifles.  This, we should note, mirrored the sales of DWM in Germany which sold full military G98s, as well as a lot of sporting variants, to target shooters throughout the long history of the production of that rifle.  Following World War Two, when the M1 Garand became required for National Match shooting, it sold accuraized M1 Garands, as well as conventional used Garands (and other older rifles) to civilian customers.  When the M14 was introduced it sold a very few National Match M14s to civilian customers.

But there had never been a time when the primary military longarm was solely being manufactured by a private concern and that private concern offered the rifle, almost, for civilian sales. That was new. The closest thing that had occurred prior to that was military versions of longarms made by private manufacturers that were not official US weapons, such as musket versions of the Sharps .45-70 rifle, but which were sometimes adopted by states for their National Guard (New York in that case) or, more recently, private manufacture of M1 Carbine versions after World War Two (and up to the present day) by small manufacturers.

When Colt introduced the AR15 Sporter, as noted, civilian shooters were mixed in their opinions about it, and this continued for an extremely long time. There was no obvious use for it other than it being a giant plinker, which is the primary use it received.  At the time, the .223/5.56 cartridge was not legal for big game in very many places and the AR15 did not have a reputation for accuracy or reliability.  One of its primary drawing points, frankly, was that it was a military weapon and it appealed to individuals (and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this) who liked military style weapons.  Even at that, however, quite a few true rifleman shunned the weapon and associated it with poor design and questioned whether a weapon that was a semi automatic variant of an assault rifle was really a rifle.

It dominated the .223 field however until Ruger introduced the Mini14 in 1973.  Even that event, however said a lot about how the AR15 was viewed, as Ruger chose to  introduce a rifle that looked, and was named, a lot like a miniature version of the beloved M14 rather than one that looked like the Stg44.  The Mini14 nearly supplanted the M16 in the Marine Corps, however, as the Marines, which never liked the M16, took a serious look at replacing the M16 with it.*****  As a commercial offering Ruger, however, reflecting the views of its owner, refused to offer the firearms with more than a five round magazine, in spite of losing sales on larger magazines to after market manufacturers^^

The M16 wasn't replaced, of course, and is with us still.  Accuracy of the rifle improved enormously with later variants and it isn't the rifle it was during the Vietnam War in a lot of ways.  And the AR15 is still with us as well.

At some point, the M16 went from being the only thing in its niche to absolutely dominant in the American firearms world.  How it happened isn't really clear, but it's happened.  Even though the rifle has never been reliable it's now enormously common and it virtually sucks the air out of the room to a certain degree.  Whereas in the 1970s a firearms store that sold Colt handguns would have one AR15 in the rack, now nearly any sporting goods stores selling firearms has rows of AR15 type rifles, although they aren't Colts.  Colt has been troubled for years and it no longer offers civilian AR15s for sale on a exclusive basis. There are leagues of other manufacturers and Colts are by far not the most common.  The rifle not surprisingly entered the target world when it was finally required to be used for standard National Match over the M14, it no longer being possible to pretend the M14 was the service rifle, but it has also entered the game fields in large numbers.  The process is mysterious, but very real. A person can't pick up any of the gun magazines without having to thumb through pages of M4/M16 knock offs in the advertisements and articles.

Now, saying anything bad about the AR is dangerous.  One writer lost his employment when he criticized the AR in 2007, stating the following:
I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.
I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."
Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."
This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries [sic] and woods.
Now that writer probably hadn't thought out what he was writing at the time (and note, I'm not endorsing it) but his opinion was a lot more widespread than people might believe.  Back in the 1970s, before AKs (other than Vietnam War prize rifles, which did in fact exist at first) were around, older riflemen expressed similar views.  My own father was of the opinion that the AR15 was for one thing and one thing only, "killing people" and disdained them.  A career Army man who in retirement worked as a highly knowledgeable gun salesman locally openly disdained the AR15 and discouraged people from buying the one his store was required to carry in a the rack, a view that was followed by everyone else in the store including the owner.  Something really changed in regards to the AR following the 1980s, and I'm not sure what it was.

 U.S. Marines training in Iraq in 2004. This Marine is armed with the M16A2, a version of the M16 that was designed by the Marine Corps itself and then adopted by the Army.  The rear sight is completely different from that of the old M16 and M16A1 and the forearm is much stiffer. The barrel is also much heavier.  The M16A2 came about after the Marine Corps determined that Ruger could not supply it with adequate numbers of Mini14s and that it was stuck with the AR.  It is a hugely improved version of the M16 and is really the rifle people think of today when they think of the M16.

Other than that with the M16A2, a Marine Corp designed version, the rifle actually became truly accurate.  Indeed, for the type of rifle it is, its highly accurate.  Nearly all of the AR fans who decry other .223 semi automatic rifles for being inaccurate only have experience with the M16A2 and later versions, rather than the M16A1 which had lackluster accuracy and was flimsy. The M16A2 was a huge improvement and the manufacturers of AR type rifles followed suit.  That surely explains some of it.

Beyond that, however, it must be the old Winchester noted "sex appeal" of the rifle that drives at least a fair amount of sales and its unacknowledged but clear status as the king of the range plinkers.  M4 carbine variants are all over the place even though the military problems with the M4 are legion.  Indeed, the service has been struggling with how to replace the M4 with a larger caliber rifle for years, and its only a matter of time before it occurs.

No matter the problems, there are seemingly endless varieties of M16 and M4 knockoffs now.  Even Ruger, Bill Ruger now long gone, offers a M4 type rifle along with its Minis.  Every gun magazine features page after page of AR type rifles now chambered in big game cartridges in what is sort of the return and revenge of the AR10, even though going afield with a rifle as cumbersome, complicated and bulky as that when after a  member of the Cervinae genus is really not the best choice.  And even now and then some kid shows up with a AR look alike for a 4H .22 shooting practice until the awkwardness of the design for that replaces it with something more conventional.

So, after all of this, am I endorsing the view of the writer above and demanding that sportsmen turn in their ARs?  No, I"m not.  Indeed, National Match shooters can't, even as they find themselves repeating history by shooting a target variants of a rifle that' no longer the combat standard, as the M4 is (and can't be made into a target rifle).

 U.S. Army soldier armed with the M4 Carbine, which has replaced the M16A5 as the frontline longarm.  It's still an AR, even tall tricked out with optical sights and doodads.  Oddly, the M4 jams more frequently than the M16A4/A4 although nobody has ever been able to determine why.  It's also less effective with its shorter barrel.  The adoption of it as the standard combat longarm is due to pure fadism in the service and nothing else.

But I am noting a few ironies, and do have a bit of a plea that will be like casting dust to the wind.

The irony is that the M16 as originally introduced was junk, and now its much improved junk.  It only became what it was as a Secretary of Defense who was wrong about nearly everything gutted the Army's ability to produce rifles for itself, and when that occurred it left manufacturing of the new service rifle with Colt, which had always had a business model of also offering for civilian sales whatever it was making for the service.  If the traditional model had been followed, the service would have acquired full rights to the M16 (and it must have acquired some) assuming we adopted it, and Springfield Armory would have been making them by 1968, along with supplemental civilian purchases.  It's somewhat doubtful that, if that occurred, any civilian manufacturer would have been allowed to introduce the AR15 or anything like it.  Indeed, I highly doubt it.  And given as it took years and years for the AR to take on the dominant status it now occupies, that may very well have never have happened.  Indeed, I doubt it would have. Today Springfield Armory would stil have been making M16s in something like the M16A5 variant, I doubt the M4 would ever have occurred, and maybe the Government would have licensed somebody to make a National Match variant, or maybe not.

So, in a weird way, the Vietnam War created the current situation in which a substitute for Air Force perimeter guards in a rainy Asian land became "America's Rifle" and the subject of some raging debate.

And my plea, or comment I guess, is that frankly, the ARs, to include the M16 and the M4, just aren't all that.  They're a problem weapons that has managed to really stick around, just like the the Trapdoor system of the late 19th Century but more so.  Running down Rugers or the like really doesn't cut it.  It is accurate, to be sure, but it isn't the end all and be all of anything, let alone the various .223s out there.  Plenty of bolt action .223s beat the AR in the game fields any day.  The old Minis plink just as plinkish as the ARs do, and work every time.  On the target range for its class, however, the AR is very good.

And beyond that, and here's the part that people causes debates and for which even somebody whose views on gun control hardly match the banners, are sort of shunned for saying, there's a real shift that's occurred over time reflected by the ARs.  Racks of tacticool ARs are at every gun store but why?  That wasn't the case some 30 years ago or so.  What's that mean?

It may mean nothing more than they are fun and easy to shoot, and on the range the functioning problems aren't much of a problem.  Or it may mean that a fascination with combat weapons, or at least that particular combat weapon, has spread from a niche category of shooting fans who were nearly like engineers in their view of that category of weapons, fascinated by mechanics, to some other sort of less technical fascination.  Certainly there's something to that as its not hard to find gun magazines that feature monthly articles on tactical shooting, even though that's something that has to be trained into proficiency, not read into efficiency.  As I noted much earlier on this blog, the United States, recent horrific events aside, is at an all time low in regard to violence and the chances of any one person needing to engage in tactical shooting with a carbine here is really low.  Maybe that's part of it.  Men, and it's mostly men, crave manly things, and the era when a huge percentage of men had military experience is over.


Not that I'm arguing that they should be banned, or any such thing.  Truth be know, the AR isn't much more advanced than the Remington 08, the Remington semi automatic rifle that was introduced by Remington in 1908 and which only came in a carbine form.  And like the AR, its virtues (and it had plenty) were a bit oversold too.

At the end of the day here, this post is about letting a little air in the room.  The current focus on the AR is just as overblown as Remington's suggestion that that hunter is going to survive his encounter with that bear.  Indeed, that poster is the subject of an amusing parody in which you see his hat flying off the cliff, he's gone, and the bear is going around the corner.^^^

___________________________________________________________________________________
*They include:

Lex Anteinternet: The problems with every debate on gun control are....
Peculiarized violence and American society. Looking at root causes, and not instrumentalities.

Packing Heat

Lex Anteinternet: Peculiarized violence and American society. Looking at root causes, and not instrumentalities. Looking Again.

**The M16, in its selective fire military form, is probably an assault rifle, although early on it was sometimes referred to as an automatic rifle, which isn't quite the same thing.  Defining the term has always been extraordinarily difficult, but generally it means a selective fire rifle, fulfilling the role of rifle and machinegun, which fires an intermediate sized cartridge.  The Stg44 was the world's first assault rifle, coming out in the early 1940s in German production and made in creasing numbers until the end of World War Two.

***A battle rifle differs from an assault rifle in that it fires a full sized cartridge and may be semi automatic or selective fire, at least by some definitions.  The Belgian FAL is perhaps the most famous example of a battle rifle, with others being the M14 and the German G3.  The AR10 may have been a battle rifle or perhaps an assault rifle, depending upon how a person views it.

****This was actually the second military contract for the AR15.  Malaysia had contracted to purchase them in 1961.

^One of the designers who apparently came to the conclusion that the AR had real problems was its own designer, Eugene Stoner, who went on to design a new rifle featuring many of the AR's better features but abandoning its problematic gas system.  That rifle became the AR18.  Armalite introduced the gun to the market in 1969 but it never had the manufacturing capacity to really effectively market it and it was already competing against Stoner's own earlier invention, the AR15.

The AR18 has usually been passed off as a project to market an assault rifle to poorer nations, but that has to be baloney.  It was not any more mechanically simple, and therefore should not have been any more expensive to manufacture, than the AR15.  It was considerably more conventional in design, however, and completely abandoned the AR's direct impingement gas system in favor of a piston.  It also abandoned the AR's high line of sight which had come about due to the feeling that this would reduce recoil in the larger caliber AR10. That has always been a problem with the ARs and has only bee addressed very recently as the M4 went to optical sights and the upper carrying  handle, which is the support for the rear sight, has become detachable.

The AR18 failed to secure any major military contracts although there were small military sales to some nations and police forces.  The US Army actually evaluated it but didn't want to buy yet another 5.56 rifle, which would seem to have been obvious.  The weapon obtained some infamy, however, as it was popular (along with AR15s) with the Irish Republican Army which liked it enough to give it the nickname "the Widowmaker".  A civilian version was offered in the form of the AR180 but it received little interest.

*****The Mini14, in spite of being constantly slammed by the fans of the AR15 actually came close to supplanting it, although the details are hard to come by.  My information from it comes from a fellow who was involved in Marine Corps procurement at the time, although you can pick up bits and pieces of the story elsewhere.

That the Marines never liked the M16 is well known.  They approached Ruger directly about acquiring Mini14s to replace the rifle and the only thing which kept it from occurring is that Ruger was engaged in a major overseas contract at the time and lacked the production capacity to fulfill a Marine Corps order.  So the Marines gave up and went on to design the M16A2 to fix the accuracy problems of the M16A1. The M16A2 went on to replace the M16A1 in the Army and Marines and the M16 in the Air Force.

Minis actually have a notable military record, but AR fans hate to admit it as it means that a rifle that looks so much more, well, World War Two, competed and still does with the AR.  It equipped the Bermuda Regiment, in a selective fire variant, of the British Army and selective fire variants are used by Philippine paramilitary police.  British police also have used it in the past and the French produce their own selective fire variant for their police.  Various orders are believed to have gone here and there in shipments that the US doesn't really want to track back to the US military.  It was widely used by US law enforcement personnel at one time, but that has very much declined in favor of the AR in recent years.

^^Bill Ruger was castigated by some in the firearms community for that view at the time.  Now there'd be absolute riots on this statement. His view wasn't uncommon at the time.  Just as there are those who regard any such statement as traitorous to firearms users today, at the time there were a fair number of people who believed that firearms manufacturers, like Colt, who offered weapons that were so clearly military were undermining support for civilian firearms owners.

^^^After all of this I'll confess that a couple of years ago I was walking through a sporting goods store and came upon an AR in the M16A1 configuration made by somebody other than Colt.  I was surprised but actually looked at it, and found myself being nostalgic about it.  No, I didn't buy it and I'm not going to buy the Colt "retro" AR15 made in the M16A1 configuration either.

Anyhow, I never liked the M16A1 when I was a Guardsmen and hardly any of the guys I served with did either. The Vietnam veterans in our ranks, and there were a lot of them, openly disdained the rife.  It's a powerful demonstrator of the nature of nostalgia that a guy like me, who had no love for any AR, would actually stop and admire an old M16A1 type one.  The power of the longing for lost youth I suppose.  A lot of people must feel that way, as why else would Colt be offering one in the M16A1 configuration?

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Ernie Pyle, the great World War Two journalist,  once quoted a sergeant in Italy as saying:"son of a bitch alive. . . son of a bitch dead."

Ernie, apparently, didn't believe any more in the Latin maxim "De mortuis nihil nisi bonum" than I do.

Ba'h.

And now we have this story from the BBC:
British IS recruiter Sally-Anne Jones was reportedly killed in a US drone strike in Syria, in June.
Jones, from Chatham in Kent, joined so-called Islamic State after converting to Islam and travelling to Syria in 2013.
Also from the Beeb:
A British jihadist reportedly killed by a US drone strike in Syria should have faced trial, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said.
Asked if he would have preferred Sally-Anne Jones to be prosecuted, he said: "I think that people who have committed crimes ought to be put on trial.
"That way... when you interrogate someone, you get more information."
Jones had recruited Western girls to the so-called Islamic State after travelling to Syria in 2013.
It is understood she was killed in June, close to the border between Syria and Iraq by a US Air Force strike.
Whitehall officials have declined to comment publicly on her case, but have not denied the story.
The former punk musician from Chatham, Kent, had encouraged people to carry out attacks in Britain and had offered guidance on how to build a bomb.
Well, play stupid games, win stupid prizes, as the saying goes. 

I suppose figuring you are a Holy Warrior for a true cause, no matter how deluded, is one thing, but to urge people to blow up your fellow citizens, well, that is quite another.  Not that such conduct is unanticipated.  St. John counseled that:
. . .  in fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering worship to God.
Speaking of that cause which he served, sort of, but taking instead their fellow travelers in Afghanistan, the Canadian Boyle family, after five years of captivity in the hands of the Haqqani network, which the United States funded during the Afghan war against the Soviet Union, raped his wife and killed their newly born infant daughter.  I'm not saying that this is indicative of the views of all Muslims, but I am saying that Muslims from the Islamic regions of the globe do an oddly bad job of distinguishing their beliefs from such atrocities.

The Boyles were in the region, they have claimed as they anted to help those"who live deep inside Taliban-controlled Afghanistan where no NGO, no aid worker and no government has ever successfully been able to bring the necessary help."  Noble, perhaps, but stupid.  There is a certain amazing naive nature in some folks in the West about going to the rougher regions of the globe and believing your good will will protect you.

Beyond that, however, if reports are correct the Boyles were "hiking".  Hiking?  In Afghanistan?  What sort of a dullard takes his pregnant wife hiking in Afghanistan?

One who, apparently, actually refuses an airlift home, after being rescued, on an American aircraft in protest of the American role in Afghanistan.

Now, Mr. Boyles was married previously, it turns out, to a woman who as a cousin of a Guantanamo Bay prisoner and now he holds a dim view of his present wife's country.  But under this circumstance, if you are offered a lift on a Air Koryo, the flagship airlines of North Korea, out of there, you freaking take it.

Now, I've already violated the societal nicety of "de mortuis nihil nisi bonum" here, i.e, speaking ill of the dead, so I'll go one further.  Mr. Boyles is an ignoramus complicit, in my view, in the death of his baby and the rape of his wife.  No, he didn't do it directly, but he should have allowed it to occur.  Unless his pregnant wife decided to fly to Afghanistan and walk out into the wild country full of wild men on her own and with a gun at the head of her husband, he has blood on his hands.

Best Post of the Week of October 8, 2017.

Not quite as busy week, post wise, as last week, but still a fair amount of posting for this week the week of October 8, 2017.

Lex Anteinternet: The problems with every debate on gun control are....

Lex Anteinternet: Is it murder?. The Face of the Executioner.

Was the Domino Theory Right?

A Mid Week At Work Query: How do you organize your week (and how do you stick to it)?

The Miracle of the Sun, October 13, 1917.

Vietnam: Could we have won the war?

Vietnam and the Law of Unintended Consequences: The AR15


Blog Mirror: A Hundred Years Ago; Hundred-year-old Advice for Avoiding Diabetes

Poster Saturday: Knowledge Wins