OPINION:
GOP presidential hopeful Nikki Haley recently made the mistake of telling the truth about what caused the Civil War. As even liberal historians agree, at the outset it was about issues such as state sovereignty and the right to secede. But by the time the war ended, popular opinion believed it had been only about slavery. Ever since, this has been the only acceptable view.
Scott Walker (“The Civil War: Democrats wanted to expand slavery and Republicans opposed it,” web, Jan. 4) and Andrew Napolitano (“Nikki Haley, the American Civil War and intellectual honesty,” web, Jan. 3) take up the question and give good detail in support of these shifting views. Moreover, they suggest takeaways relevant to the divisions roiling us today. One is that civil wars, unlike other conflicts, leave festering aftermaths that won’t heal. I have lived in six different countries where this was the case. The unhappiest by far was and is the United States.
Another takeaway is that here, unlike elsewhere in the hemisphere, it took a civil war to end slavery. In Latin America and the Caribbean — where slavery began a century earlier and was quantifiably worse — it died out quietly.
How can we explain such a stark contrast? As Mr. Walker and Mr. Napolitano make clear, slavery in the U.S. (unlike elsewhere) became infected with politics. As a result, the Civil War’s most persistent and divisive legacy is the “racist” taunt.
Can we ever depoliticize it? Maybe — if we put politicians back on the short leashes intended by the Constitution, downsize government and diminish the meddlesome influence of politics on daily life.
JOHN S. MASON JR.
Irvington, Virginia
Please read our comment policy before commenting.