Thursday, December 14, 2017
Perspective

PolitiFact: John Kelly, the Civil War and the slavery compromise that almost was

he uproar that followed White House chief of staff John Kellyís comment about the roots of the Civil War stands as Exhibit A of the potential problems that come when an official uses shorthand to talk about the countryís history of slavery.

Here is the key excerpt of Kellyís Oct. 30 interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham. Ingraham had brought up the issue of removing statues of Confederate leaders. Kelly said:

"Itís inconceivable to me that you would take what we think now and apply it back then. I think itís just very, very dangerous. It shows you what ó how much of a lack of appreciation of history and what history is.

I would tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which in 150 years ago was more important than country. It was always loyalty to state first back in those days. Now itís different today. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War. And men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had to make their stand."

Kelly might have been talking about Lee, but his focus on compromise became a lightning rod.

Ken Burns, whose groundbreaking PBS series include The Civil War and this fallís The Vietnam War, joined other historians disappointed in Kellyís synopsis, tweeting, "Many factors contributed to the Civil War. One caused it: slavery."

Kellyís comments about a lack of ability to compromise causing the Civil War opened a window on the last-ditch efforts to head off war in 1861, and details seldom studied by the general public.

Behind every war lies the failure of negotiation or compromise. But compromise before the Civil War failed for particular reasons. There was sufficient support for allowing slavery to remain where it already existed. It was slaveryís future in the rest of the country that allowed for no common ground.

The fact is, on the eve of President Abraham Lincolnís inauguration, Congress had approved a constitutional amendment that would have preserved and protected slavery for all time. It was headed to the states for ratification and Lincoln said he did not object to it.

The other 13th Amendment

The 13th Amendment we have today abolished slavery. But on March 2, 1861, President James Buchanan approved an amendment that would have preserved it for all time. The "other" 13th Amendment, also called the Corwin Amendment, put a firewall between the federal government and slavery in the slave states. Passed by super-majorities in the House and Senate, it said:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of person held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

"The very nature of this compromise was to reassure anxious Southerners that they could be safe in the Union," said Daniel Crofts, professor of history at the College of New Jersey and author of Lincoln and the Politics of Slavery. "It didnít just clarify that the federal government couldnít interfere with slavery. It said no future amendment could change that." (Whether an amendment can be insulated from a future amendment is an unresolved legal puzzle.)

This came at the 11th hour. In the time between Lincolnís election and his inauguration, seven states had already seceded. Anyone who thought the secessionists had been bluffing had been proved wrong.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln spoke directly about this final effort.

"I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable," he said.

Ohio, Maryland and Illinois quickly ratified the amendment, but when Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston, S.C., in April 1861, the war began and the ratification process stopped. (It was a sign of Lincolnís evolving thinking on slavery that two years later, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves in the South.)

Lincoln was not alone in his approach. Leading anti-slavery congressmen Thaddeus Stevens and Owen Lovejoy didnít embrace the amendment but agreed that the federal government had no power to interfere with slavery in the slave states. It was in keeping with the Republican Party 1860 platform, which affirmed "the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively."

But if the amendment protected the self-determination of slave states, it said nothing about allowing slavery in future states to come. Two related compromise efforts did keep that option open. They had some traction with southern leaders, but hit a brick wall with Lincoln and most Republicans.

The Crittenden Compromise & more

In December 1860, Kentucky Sen. John Crittenden offered a plan that would allow slavery south of the line defined in the 1820 Missouri Compromise, roughly following the border between Kentucky and Tennessee. The Crittenden Compromise would run that line all the way to the Pacific. Above it, as states formed in the center of the nation and westward, slavery would be prohibited. Below it, citizens of new states could impose it. (The 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act ran counter to this scheme.)

Crittendenís plan included amendments and resolutions to bar federal intervention in slave states and from interfering with the slave trade among the states.

Historian Richard Striner at Washington College said Lincoln lobbied hard to defeat it.

Striner cites a letter marked private and confidential from Lincoln to fellow Republican William Kellogg of Illinois.

"Entertain no proposition for a compromise in regard to the extension of slavery," Lincoln wrote Dec. 11, 1860. "The instant you do, they have us under again; all our labor is lost, and sooner or later must be done over."

The measure died in committee.

"Lincoln wanted to put slavery on a path to extinction," Striner said. "If it was allowed to spread, he thought it was entirely possible that it would eventually take on national dimensions."

Lincoln also understood the politics of his party.

Blocking the extension of slavery from new states was "the glue that held the Republican Party together," Croft said. "There was a significant faction in the party that was dedicated to the end of slavery. They were told that stopping it in the territories was the first step to getting rid of it."

In February 1861, a group of northern and southern leaders met at the Willard Hotel in Washington to revive many of the essential pieces of the Crittenden plan. That failed too, largely for the same reasons as the original effort.

The Republicans were dead-set against expansion, and the slave-owning states saw it as the key to survival.

"The pro-slavery states were correct that the election of Lincoln and Republican control of Congress could set in motion a long-term series of events that could end slavery," Striner said. "If every new state was non-slave owning, then it was just a matter of time before they would have the votes to ban it everywhere."

An Oct. 11, 1860, editorial in the Charleston Mercury warned of the threat if Lincoln and the Republicans won the election. "When a party is enthroned at Washington, in the executive and legislative departments of the government, whose creed it is to repeal the Fugitive Slave Laws, the underground railroad will become an overground railroad," the newspaper editors wrote.

They went on to warn that slaves would fall in value as slave owners closer to the north would unload them on the "Cotton states," that the abolitionist movement would surge and that "secret conspiracy, and its attendant horrors and rumors of horrors, will hover over every portion of the South."

Ultimately, the unbridgeable divide was not the fate of slavery in the short run, but the battle between two irreconcilable visions of America. One looked decades ahead and saw a future with slavery. The other looked ahead and saw it gone.

Contact Jon Greenberg at [email protected] Follow @jonzgreenberg.

Comments

President Trump isnít watching too much TV; itís just the wrong kind.

By JAMES PONIEWOZIKBecause President Donald Trump has said he is a reader ó big-league reader, reads documents, the best documents ó I hope that he is reading this, and not, say, watching a Fox & Friends recording on the gigantic flat-screen TV that ...
Updated: 8 hours ago
PolitiFact: What you need to know about net neutrality

PolitiFact: What you need to know about net neutrality

The Federal Communications Commissionís vote to scrap Obama-era internet restrictions creates the potential for broadband providers like Frontier and Spectrum to divide their networks into fast lanes and slow lanes, throttle rivalsí video-streaming s...
Updated: 8 hours ago

Perspective: Sexual harassment training doesnít work, but some things do.

Many people are familiar with typical corporate training to prevent sexual harassment: clicking through a PowerPoint, checking a box that you read the employee handbook or attending a mandatory seminar at which someone lectures about harassment while...
Updated: 8 hours ago

12Thatís how many cans of Diet Coke President Donald Trump drinks each day, according to the New York Times.3 timesThatís how much likelier farmed salmon are to be partially deaf than their wild relatives. Scientists at the University of Melbourne de...
Updated: 8 hours ago
Perspective: The year Santa Claus didnít come

Perspective: The year Santa Claus didnít come

The doctor studied the glob of puss oozing from the patchwork of scabs along my one-year-old sonís left index finger."Itís definitely infected. And you have no idea when or how it happened?"He didnít say it, but hereís what I heard next in my head: "...
Updated: 7 hours ago
Perspective: An economist explains how to sort facts from fictions

Perspective: An economist explains how to sort facts from fictions

In public debates about economic policy, it can be hard to separate real insights from political posturing. But a few simple rules of thumb can help.Start with information you can count on. Crucial economic statistics ó like the unemployment rate, in...
Updated: 8 hours ago
News media offers consistently warped portrayals of black families, study finds

News media offers consistently warped portrayals of black families, study finds

If all you knew about black families was what national news outlets reported, you are likely to think African Americans are overwhelmingly poor, reliant on welfare, absentee fathers and criminals, despite what government data show, according to the r...
Updated: 8 hours ago
Perspective: Is the GOP tax plan an unprecedented windfall for the wealthy? We look at 50 years of data to find out.

Perspective: Is the GOP tax plan an unprecedented windfall for the wealthy? We look at 50 years of data to find out.

The Democrats say President Donald Trumpís tax cuts are a massive giveaway to the rich, the most unequal overhaul of the U.S. tax system in modern history. Republicans argue they are a huge middle class tax cut ó "a great, big, beautiful Christmas pr...
Published: 12/05/17
Updated: 12/07/17

Perspective: Guilt can be good for your kid

Guilt can be a complicated element in the parent-child equation; we feel guilty, they feel guilty, we may make them feel guilty and then feel guilty about that. But certain kinds of guilt are a healthy part of child development.Tina Malti, a professo...
Published: 12/04/17
Updated: 12/07/17
Perspective: Why trying new things is so hard to do

Perspective: Why trying new things is so hard to do

By SENDHIL MULLAINATHANI drink a lot of Diet Coke: 2 liters a day, almost six cansí worth. Iím not proud of the habit, but I really like the taste of Diet Coke.As a frugal economist, Iím well aware that switching to a generic brand would save me mone...
Published: 12/03/17
Updated: 12/07/17