“Dense…truly dense”

From: kbachand@juno.com
To: manly@manlyrash.com

Dear Mr. Rash:

I would thank you for the reply had there been any substance to it.  Instead of making assertions, how about giving evidence–that is, if I can’t see the forest for the trees, please show me the forest.

You might begin by explaining why the Southern states would fight a long war in which they were outnumbered, out gunned, and out supplied when if their intent was the perpetuation of slavery, they needed only to remain
in the Union and ratify the original 13th amendment–the Corwin Amendment, which Lincoln personally endorsed.

You clearly are not willing to attempt to prove secession to have been un-Constitutional or illegal but rather to assert that the point is irrelivant, this in spite of the fact that you thought it important to note that South Carolina had initiated the conflict by seceding from the Union.  Are you now unwilling to stand on that point?

You say, “the principle motivation for the secession was the preservation of an institution that is utterly irreconcilable with the inalienable human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

I believe I passed along to you a most scholarly treatise on slavery in the North(by a Northerner), and I did that to make the point that the so-called “moral” issue that you are hanging your hat on was quite hard to find throughout the North at the very time that you say the South was bent on perpetuating a most immoral institution.  If you read it, you’ll find that the first efforts to abolish slavery began in the South, not in the North.  Moreover, you will find that the Northern states deliberately enacted constitutional provisions and laws that denied black people equal rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (those “human rights” you say the South denied black people)–this in some states to the extent of being flogged and sold back into slavery for such offenses as moving about in those states without permits or other such acts that were normal for whites.  They were not allowed to vote, sit on juries, bring suits against white people, give testimony against white people, and much more.  It’s all there and thoroughly documented.

In short, how about acting like a true student of history and not a prejudicial bore by making unsupported accusations.  I’ll read anything you send.  You do the same.  Then we can compare and have ground on
which to argue.

By the way, if you were alluding to the Declaration of Independence, the correct words are “unalienable rights,” not “inalienable rights.”

Now, as you have dodged my first challenge, I’ll offer another: Prove to me that the North was fighting a war to end slavery.  After all, you are confident that you have it right, aren’t you?  I’ll agree with you if you prove that you are.  Otherwise, I’ll have to conclude that you are “dense…truly dense”!

Respectfully,
Kenneth Bachand
__________

You wrote:

You people are dense…truly dense.

The putative unconstitutionality or illegality of the southern states’ secession is irrelevant: the principle motivation for the secession was the preservation of an institution that is utterly irreconcilable with the inalienable human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As such, the CSA had absolutely no moral  ground on which to base its actions.

Any political entity that institutionalizes slavery is in no position to make an appeal to the cause of liberty. It really is that simple and I suggest you stop staring at the trees long enough to grasp the forest.

—– Original Message —–
From: kbachand@juno.com
To: manly@manlyrash.com
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010
Subject: Your ignorance is palpable!
Dear sir:

I do not normally make an assertion so direct as that on my subject line, but I respectfully believe it appropriate here, for I do believe that you are not well informed.

I have studied and taught history for more than half a century and am in the last stages of writing a book on the subject of the right of secession but will not argue it with you at this point beyond saying that you cannot
prove that secession was either un-Constitutional or illegal in 1860.  This isn’t the first time I have offered this challenge, and many have tried but failed to prove me wrong–some of them lawyers with rather impressive
credentials.

But I have the feeling that you are in need of some enlightenment on the subject of slavery in places other than in the Old South, and so I have attached a book on the subject of slavery in the North for your further
education on the subject.

As it is some 85 pages long, I attached it rather than including it as straight e-mail.  That often messes up text, and I don’t want that.

I will also suggest that you invest in an inexpensive paperback entitled Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery, for it–as well as the one I have attached–is written by Northerners.

But on the original subject, simply put, the whole issue of who is responsible for the so-called Civil War stands  on whether secession was either un-Constitutional or illegal, and if you can prove that, you stop
all mouths on the subject.

Respectfully,
Kenneth Bachand
kbachand@juno.com