"Why was there the Civil War?"

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.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog