Skip to main content

"Why was there the Civil War?"

Image result for andrew jackson clipart

President Trump recently stumbled, in his usual word-salad way, into a subject to which I have given a good deal of thought over a period of decades (I once tried to write a book about it.)

On May 1, on Sirius XM radio, Trump said: "People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why?" Trump said in an interview with The Washington Examiner that also aired on Sirius XM radio. "People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

This much already is confusing. "People" in general "don't ask" that question? Sorry, but a lot of people do ask, and a lot of people, of varying levels of well-informed to ignoramus, have sought to answer it and have argued with one another's answers. I can only understand Trump here if he is saying, "People in my circles generally don't ask it, or haven't until quite recently, or I haven't paid attention...." Something like that. 

But Trump wasn't done. He was going to answer this question no one was asking.  It turned on Andrew Jackson, who if he had still been around "a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."

"He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War." He said, 'There's no reason for this,'" 
Okay, let me try to sort that one out. 

In one sentence he acknowledged that Jackson was no longer around, in the next he seems to say that he WAS around, else how could it be that he "saw what was happening" and became angry? 

I suspect our president had recently encountered some explanation of the nullification controversy of the 1830s. Calhoun's theory that South Carolina could nullify federal laws with which it was unhappy was in fact a precursor to the secessions of 1860, and it did in fact make Jackson "really angry."

Was this a case of Jackson 'working something out,' as a negotiator? Well ... not really? A negotiator tries to bring the opposing parties together: Jackson simply staked out a middle position and demanded adherence to it.  He pressed for a lower tariff, but also got Congress to pass a Force Bill authorizing him to use the military against South Carolina. He was also against the central bank, which earned him some 'cred' in the Carolinas, where Biddle's bank was considered a Yankee trick at the expense of the south.  Thus, Jackson's  message to the Carolina's was, "I'm on your side against the northerners on a lot of subjects. But even when Webster and his ilk beat us on an issue, the federal law is something you must obey." And he made THAT stick on the issue of tariffs. The precedent created by the Force Bill, and the peaceful resolution of the crisis, has the consequence that the theoreticians of the plantation elite abandoned the notion of nullification after that. 

This of course left their fertile minds open to the idea of secession.

My guess is our President has heard something of this, and that his comments were an effort at expressing it.

Still, a lot happened in the intervening quarter century, and the conflation of the two crises serves no purpose for any real understanding of the latter, the crisis of 1859-61 that gave us civil war.


Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …