Grey Matters

A few years ago, my daughter came home from school and said that they’d been learning about the American Civil War. The Civil War, she said, had been fought to free the slaves. I explained that while this is a popular myth and Politically Correct, in fact just the opposite is true — the Civil War was not fought to free the slaves, the slaves were freed to fight the war. That is, the slaves were freed as an act of war.

It is commonplace for schools to teach that the American civil war was fought over the issue of slavery. It was not. It was fought over the issue of secession. Both the Union and the Confederacy made it clear at the outset of the war that preserving the union was the issue. Abraham Lincoln was not about to let the union come apart while he was in office. As a result, we fought the bloodiest war in U.S. history.

Holding the union together was Lincoln’s foremost concern. Concerns about slavery were secondary. In fact, Lincoln was willing to protect slavery where it existed. He was in favor of enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, though he rejected the Crittenden Compromise, a proposed constitutional amendment which would have divided the whole continent into slave and free zones along 36 deg 30′ north latitude, because this would have permitted the extension of slavery to additional territories.

By the time Lincoln took office as the president of the United States, seven states had already seceded from the union. They would be joined by four more. Jefferson Davis, the provisional president of the Confederacy, set about assuming control of federal property, especially military installations such as Fort Pickens in Pensacola harbor, and Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. Fort Sumter was especially important. The Confederacy could not truly claim to be free of the Union while Charleston harbor, a key international port, was still under Union control. Fort Sumter thus became an important symbol of independence. Given too that South Carolina had been the first state to secede (on December 20, 1860) Lincoln was determined that Sumter would not fall.

Confederate authorities sought unsuccessfully to negotiate a peaceful evacuation of the Union garrison at Fort Sumter throughout March of 1861. Negotiations having failed, on April 12 Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter forcing its surrender the following day. This act is universally acknowledged as the start of the American Civil War. The taking of Fort Sumter had everything to do with secession and nothing to do with slavery.

Now that we know what the Civil War was about, let’s look at how the slaves were freed and particularly at the Proclamation of Emancipation issued by Lincoln and see what it was about. There were actually two Proclamations. The first, the Preliminary Proclamation (September 22, 1862), was simply a warning. It stated that 100 days hence, slaves would “be then, thenceforward and forever free” but only in those states that were still in rebellion against the Union as of January 1, 1863. Lincoln was threatening to free enemy slaves, not the Union’s slaves.

One hundred days later on January 1, 1863, as specified in the Preliminary Proclamation, the Proclamation of Emancipation was issued. The slave states that were loyal to the Union were exempted (or, as the Proclamation says, “left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.”). These included Tennessee (already under Union control) and portions of Louisiana, Virginia and West Virginia  The Proclamation goes on to list the states and parts of states that were in rebellion and thus affected by the proclamation. “…to wit: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, …” Slavery was still in effect in those slave states and portions of states loyal to, or under the control of, the Union. This hardly sounds like the principled act of someone opposed to slavery. So why did Lincoln issue the proclamation?

Lincoln made it clear that the slaves were being freed out of military necessity; The purpose was to deny to the Confederacy a portion of its productive peoples and thus hasten the end of the war. To quote Lincoln in the Proclamation of Emancipation: “as Commander-in-Chief … in time of actual armed rebellion… as a fit and necessary war measure for repressing said rebellion…” The proclamation, after proclaiming Confererate slaves free, then goes on to encourage those just freed to abstain from all violence and further invited them to join Union forces.

In other words, slaves were freed as a means (“war measure“) of fighting the war. The Civil War was not fought to free the slaves. And the Emancipation Proclamation did not outlaw slavery. It declared that certain, selected slaves, assets of the Confederacy, were free. Few, if any slaves were actually freed by the Proclamation since areas under Confederate control ignored the Proclamation.

So, Lincoln did not free the slaves over which he could exercise control, the Union slaves, but he did “free” slaves over which he had no control. Effectively, he freed no one.

The institution of slavery was finally ended with adoption of the 13th Amendment nearly three years later in December of 1865. Lincoln did not live to see it as he was assasinated in April of that year.

Lincoln is considered by some to have been a tyrant for his abuse of citizens’ civil liberties. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus in some areas as early as April 27, 1861, and throughout the nation on September 24, 1862. The Lincoln administration made over 13,000 arbitrary arrests.

Oh, and let’s not forget that Lincoln instituted military conscription, the first ever military draft in U.S. history. That’s involuntary servitude — slavery for white people.

Tyrant or not, Lincoln was no Great Emancipator.

Here’s the Emancipation Proclamation in its entirety:

By the President of the United States of America:

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

That the executive will on the 1st day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States.

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for supressing said rebellion [emphasis added], do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Morthhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all case when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

Written October 30, 1996

Are You A Liberal or a Conservative? (And are those the only choices?)

On CNN Live today there was a segment on the book Are You a Conservative or a Liberal? The book was authored by two guys — one an admitted Conservative, the other a confessed Liberal. What the book attempts to do, as near as I could tell, is explain the liberal and conservative positions on 120 issues and help the reader determine which flavor of politics — liberal or conservative — is the better designation for that individual.

Many people today find themselves “liberal” with respect to some issues and “conservative” when it comes to others. As a result of long exposure to the “liberal-conservative” paradigm, they thus mistakenly identify themselves as “moderate.” The political spectrum, however, is not the simple two-dimensional model portrayed by, among others, the authors of the subject book who would like us to believe that everyone falls somewhere on a line running from extreme conservatism to extreme liberalism. People are naturally confused when they find their positions on various issues scattered all along this line running from Right-Wing to Left-Wing.

Why does this happen? Well, like the real world, the political landscape is three-dimensional. In addition to “left” and “right” there are also “up” and “down” plus “back” and “forth.” We are not simply varying amounts of liberalism and conservatism. There are other dimensions involved. Liberals and Conservatives are actually pretty similar.

Both Liberals and Conservatives want to mold society to their liking. Conservatives want a moral, God-fearing society while Liberals want us all to be nice to each other (or else!) and share everything like good socialists. Both Liberals and Conservatives are willing to use police powers (government) to enforce their idea of a perfect society and proper behavior. Viewed in the three-dimensional universe, “conservative” and “liberal” are actually pretty close together. They are two sides of the same authoritarian coin.

For those enamored of a one-dimensional political spectrum, may I suggest a line running from Authoritarian to Libertarian. Those who want government to force people to conform to their vision of a “good” society (as both Liberals and Conservatives do) live down at the Authoritarian end of the spectrum. Those advocating less government and more personal freedom, more personal responsibility, are toward the Libertarian end of the spectrum.

Rather than buy a book to find out where on some non-existent, two-dimensional political spectrum they are, people should perhaps consider all the dimensions. For starters, take the World’s Smallest Political Quiz.

For many people, the answer to “Are you a liberal or a conservative?” is “No.”

In July of 1996, Reason magazine featured a number of articles relating to federal tax code. Naturally, a proposed “Flat Tax” was discussed. I was motivated to write to Reason. Here is what they published in the November issue Letters To The Editor.

Any tax with a rate of zero percent for some people and 15 or 20 percent for others can hardly be called “flat.” Unfortunately, any flat tax we may end up with will be “flat” in name only. And that is a part of a much larger problem.

For years politicians have been convincing Americans that a) We can have it all and b) Some one else will pay for it. For some people this may be true. For many others, however, it may be perceived to be true. The perception that they are getting a free ride at the expense of “the rich” or “big business” is sufficient motivation for people to vote themselves more benefits. Too many Americans don’t realize how much the tax burden is costing them.

I agree with Grover Norquist that taxes should be “visible, painful, and applied equally to all taxpayers.” Bruce Bartlett points out that under a flat income tax, “A family of four would have to earn $25,000 per year before it paid any income tax” and that “there is no possibility that the Congress would enact a sales tax without doing something to reduce the burden on the poor.” Yet, to include a zero percent rate (or a rebate mechanism in the case of a sales tax) for some people is to leave in place the incentive for these people to continue voting for higher taxes.

Any proposal, if it is to actually reduce the size of government, must reduce the number of people who perceive themselves to be receiving a net benefit and increase in numbers those of us who feel we carry more than our share of the burden. This will happen only if tax policy and tax rates apply equally to everyone. 

February 3, 1996

Renowned bank robber Willy Sutton is famously believed to have said, when asked why he robbed banks, something like, “That’s where the money is.” It behooves us to keep Willy’s simple logic in mind as we contemplate the various tax strategies being proposed.

If the object of a tax plan is to raise lots of money, then forget about taxing poor people. “Rich” people haven’t much to offer either. Being relatively few in number, if their entire income above $100,00 was taxed away it would run government for a few days at most. The truth is, “where the money is” is in the hands of middle-class taxpayers and consequently it’s from the middle class that the vast majority of tax revenues are taken.

Government in the USA consumes something between 40 and 50 percent of the entire Gross National Product. That’s nearly half of everything each of us produces. It’s a staggering amount and most people are blissfully unaware of it. Taxes are so ubiquitous that we tend to ignore them — but they add up. Look at your electric, telephone, gas and cable TV bills. Federal excise taxes on all manner of goods. Tax on airline tickets, room taxes on hotel bills. We are all being taxed far more than most people realize.

Taxes are hidden or “built into” everything we buy. When you purchase a car you don’t just pay the sales tax and a bit of excise tax shown on the sticker. You’re paying the payroll taxes that went toward employing the labor that built it and each of its component parts. And you’re paying the highway and fuel taxes on the trucks that transported the parts to the factory and the completed car to the dealer. And the payroll taxes to employ the drivers of the trucks. And the taxes on the steel mill that created the sheet metal the body was made from. On and on it goes. Taxes add many thousands of dollars to the cost of a new car and very little of it shows up on the window sticker. Whether you buy a toaster or a Twinkie, a disposable diaper or a tube of tooth paste, a new music CD or a hammer — you’re paying the built-in taxes. Buy a new home and not only are you paying huge amounts of hidden tax but you’re paying interest for 30 years on the money you borrowed to pay the hidden taxes.

All the poor people and all the rich people in the country together simply do not have the 40-50% of GNP that gets sucked up by government. You, the average Joe or Jane do. And the government, like Willy Sutton, knows where to find the money. Though government may describe a tax as hitting hard at big corporations, rest assured you’re footing the bill in higher prices — hidden taxes. Government may juggle the numbers, vary the deductions and play with tax credits every now and again in an effort to favor one constituency over another but, rest assured, the middle class pays the vast majority of taxes. That’s where the money is.

For our money we get government subsidization of out-of-wedlock births, pork-barrel construction projects, outright hand-outs to well-connected corporations and a vast array of things in between. Most of it is not what I would consider “good government”.

Government is simply too big — 40-50% of GNP and rising. By 1994, the number of workers employed by government in this country exceeded the number employed in manufacturing. The reason that government has grown to be as large as it is and is still growing is that for years government has been telling us that: a) We can have it all; and b) Someone else will pay for it. And, by and large, we’ve believed it. We’ve believed it and continued to vote for politicians promising more benefits, more handouts, more programs, more of everything, and all the while believing someone else was paying for it. “Someone else” turns out to be the middle class — us. We are robbing ourselves blind and even robbing our children by amassing a huge national debt. We must reduce the size of government and the overall tax bite.

The only way to rein in government is to give it less money. The primary objective of any new tax plan therefore should not be to rearrange the tax burden yet again but to reduce it. And only if a majority of citizens call for a reduced tax burden will government actually deliver on it. As is, a great many people, ignorant of, or indifferent to, the hidden tax in everything, believe themselves to be, on net, coming out ahead in the tax burden shuffling. That is, they perceive that the benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. For some people this is actually true but a great many more believe it to be true when it is in fact just a well-crafted illusion. Many people believe they “don’t pay any tax” because the income tax — the most obvious and notorious tax — leaves them unscathed or paying only a trifling amount. We need, therefore, to increase in number the people who feel the tax bite so that they too will call for less government and lower taxes.

So now we come to the various tax plans being considered by the congress as a replacement for the current income tax. We are offered a national sales tax and a so-called flat income tax. Any flat tax likely to be enacted will be flat in name only. You can’t have a tax rate of 0% for some people and a higher tax for others and honestly call it “flat”. Yet every “flat” tax proposal does just that. I’ve seen various cut-off incomes mentioned below which folks will pay no income tax. This then leaves in place the incentives for those below the cut-off to continue to vote for higher taxes. Hardly anyone, it seems, has a problem with raising someone else’s taxes.

A “flat tax” should therefore impose the same rate on every one of us, no favorites, no refunds, no “earned income” tax credits. A person voting for higher taxes should be raising their own taxes along with everyone else’s.

The proposals for a national sales tax usually include a provision for refunds to lower-income people. This again creates a group of “non taxpayers” who have every reason to vote for higher taxes for everyone else.

If we are to have any chance of cutting back on the size of government then everyone needs to feel the pinch. Any new tax program should impose taxes that are visible and equal in rate for all taxpayers regardless of income.

Written December 12, 1992

The runners are milling around the starting line, stretching, limbering up. An official is explaining how the 100 meter race will be started. Let’s listen in.

“At my instruction you’ll take position at your marks and get set. Shortly thereafter I will fire the starting pistol. At that time, all African American and other minority runners will leave the starting blocks and begin their sprint. Once these runners have their head start, a second pistol shot will signal that non-minority runners may begin. 

“As you know, this procedure is necessary to give minority competitors an equal opportunity to win. As President Lyndon Johnson said in 1965: ‘You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others.’

“This ‘Fair Start’ procedure is necessary to redress past injustices. Good luck and may the best man win.”

The above scenario is, of course, fictitious. Anyone foolish enough to suggest that Black athletes aren’t competitive would promptly be hooted out of town — and deservedly so. Blacks are, if anything, over-represented in sports. 

Few people have dared to ask why. At any suggestion that Blacks might have a genetic advantage we have been assured that this is not so. “Hard work and dedication” we are told are the key to Black athletes’ success. Granting that this is so we then have to ask: Why is it that people who do not need a head start on the playing fields and in the stadiums of this country do need the head start provided by Affirmative Action in the schools, factories, offices and boardrooms of America? 

The answer is simple: They don’t. The same Hard Work and Dedication which works so well in athletics will work equally well when applied to other endeavors. The problem is that Hard Work and Dedication is not applied to other endeavors with anything like the frequency we see in sports. Why not?

Because it is not necessary. Why invest long hours and hard work — “sweat equity” — when skin pigment will do as well? Who among us, given an objective, wouldn’t choose the easier way to accomplish that goal, rather than a more difficult and time-consuming method? You want into medical school? Well, you can either keep that grade point average up for years on end to qualify or you can have parents of the right ethnic background. 

Is it merely an ironic cooincidence that the two areas where Blacks indisputably do well — entertainment and sports — are two of the only areas where Affirmative Action has not reared its ugly head? Not likely. It might be argued that Blacks have done well in sports because there was no Affirmative Action to hold them back.