A fastidious editor of other people's copy as well as his own, Roberts began with the words "Until about the time of the Civil War." Then, the Indiana native scratched out the words "Civil War" and replaced them with "War Between the States."What significance should we give to this? Do you think it wasn't worth writing an article in the Washington Post about? Or do you think it really reveals something about the mind we're being asked to trust for decades?
If it reveals something, what does it reveal? I note that it is certainly possible for a person in the 1980s to be interested in the federalism revival and the respect for state autonomy that it expresses, without having any enthusiasm for slavery, segregation, and other retrograde practices that the Civil War calls to mind.
Posts
26 comments:
I note that it is certainly possible for a person in the 1980s to be interested in the federalism revival and the respect for state autonomy that it expresses, without having any enthusiasm for slavery, segregation, and other retrograde practices that the Civil War calls to mind.
Don't you mean "the Civil War Between the States" ?
I think it depends on what he was writing about. If the article was about conflicts between the states, then I think "War Between the States" makes sense to highlight the idea that in the Civil War, the states were fighting each other. If the article was about national internal conflict, I think that "Civil War" would make more sense to highlight that the nation was in a civil war.
Depends on content, I guess.
I hate the term "the war between the states". At best, it is a cumbersome euphemism. But at worst, I would be concerned that language can shape people's perceptions.
A civil war takes place in one STATE and in one NATION (see Bobbit, Shield of Achilles). "The war between the states" seems to allow the idea that the polities in the civil war were separate entities, something the term civil war specifically denies.
It just seems to be an attempt to say "look, the confederacy was defeated, but that doens't mean they were wrong".
Don't know what it says about Judge Roberts, but all the publicity should remind people once again to never make any sort of joke in a memo.
About the term, there's an interesting Wikipedia article about it. Apparently the official US Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington National Cemetary uses the term. It was commonly used in the US between 1900 and 1940.
It's much less offensive than, say "War of Southern Independence," or the truly upsetting (except when said tongue-in-cheek) "War of Northern Agression."
Technically, the South seceded and had formed their own country. Therefore, if you have that mentality, it really was a War Between the Union and the Confederacy. Or, you could short-hand it for the war between the states. Either way - assuming you take the position that the southern states had legally seceded - it wouldn't necessarily be a civil war anymore, for the southern states were their own nation.
Justin: But the Union's position was that succession was not authorized under the Constitution.
This just shows he is a good writer.
"Un-til / uh-bout / the time / of the / war buh/tween tha / states."
He writes in iambs. It is so much better than "Until about the time of the Civil War," which ends on a down beat.
Pedantic, I know, but others may also appreciate my 8th grade history teacher who taught us this handy word usage phrase: In 1861, counties, in succession, voted for or against secession.
lmeade: Thanks. I had a feeling I was getting that wrong.
Wow. Words cannot express the absolute mneh I feel about this. Just further evidence that things that matter on the Coasts do not matter in the rest of America.
Growing up as I did in Wisconsin and then Michigan, I was taught that the terms "Civil War" and "The War Between the States" were synonymous. Now that I live in Mississippi, where neither of the two are acceptable terms to a not-inconsiderable number of people (who do indeed refer to a war of Southern independence or a war of Northern aggression), I understand the regional limitations of the discourse, but I fail to identify the offense committed.
There is more than one right way to express an idea, and there is certainly historical support for the notion that the Civil War was indeed The War Between the States, considering the vast number of militia and draftees organized by state and even ethnic enclaves within the states.
Since we're haggling over exactly how to divide that hair, neither Civil War nor War Between the States is grammatically accurate. It wasn't a Civil War at all, as the South was not attempting to conquer the national government. And "between" implies two parties. So you'd need to go to War Among the States to be correct (although that doesn't really flow off the tongue either). I was born in Illinois but grew up in Tennessee and went to college in Indiana so I got full exposure to both sets of biases regarding the terminology. Probably the most historically accurate reference would be the War for (or, if you prefer, against) Seccession, but I'm not holding my breath for that to catch on!
Perhaps the article reasd too much into this. If my audience was an intellectual one, I would perhaps use "War between the States" rather than "Civil War." It just seems more formal. Moreover, if you are with history buffs, you can't just say "Civil War," (someone might think you are talking about the English Civil War). You would have to say United States Civil War or American Civil War. However saying American Civil war may seem to matter-of-fact. Thus, "War Between the States," is better because there are no other conflicts in the world also called that.
"Civil War" implies that two sides are fighting for control of the entire territory, but the South didn't want to run the North, they just wanted to leave. "Civil War," from Roman times, implies a class-based conflict, but we had two sets of elites and two sets of common folk, not class vs. class. The conflict was geographic and political, not religious or economic.
So we could call it the "War of Secession", but that runs into the problem that the war established through force of arms that there was no right to secede, and so it wasn't secession, it was rebellion. We could go with "Southern Rebellion" but a rebellion is generally a small-scale insurrection - once you have two huge armies in the field, its a WAR, not a wimpy rebellion.
Leaving us with the eloquently descriptive "War Between The States", which is accurate, doesn't glorify the rebels or undermine the legitimacy of the Federal state, and has a certain antiquarian feel that I find appealing.
What if he had written:
"The war to keep the coloreds in their rightful place."
Now that would be something!
Bob: "War Between the States" is the perfect example of when it IS grammatically correct to use "between" to talk about more than two things. "War Among the States" would signify the states all fighting each other. Here, there were two groups, one side against the other. "Between" is correct.
I think it reveals that people are desperate to find anything to write about Roberts.
"Many people who are sympathetic to the Confederate position are more comfortable with the idea of a 'War Between the States,'" McSeveney explained. "People opposed to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s would undoubtedly be more comfortable with the words he chose."
He uses words that racists use! In fact, many racists are also named Roberts! And don't forget that picture of the pie! Not married until he was 40, eh? Male "friends"? We all know what that means - nudge, nudge.
I don't really have strong feelings about Roberts one way or the other. If it weren't so pathetic, the media's desperation to validate their existence by discovering some bombshell would be amusing.
Anyone with political aspirations knows they have to be careful not to say or do anything potentially damaging. The media assume anyone who wants high office is suspect, so now it's a game to find the evidence that fits the crime. They're left with sorting through ancient documents that could be interpreted in a dozen different ways. Meh.
Well, and one could certainly say that "civil war" is itself effectively an oxymoron--warfare is at least arguably the ultimate breakdown of civility. A civil resolution of a dispute involves sitting down and talking it through. War--not so much.
That this quote should serve as the basis for an article in anything but a MoveOn piece is pathetic. Is August really that slow in the newsroom?
Why not just apply a 'Bible Code' or 'DaVinci Code' process, and use, say, every sixth letter in Robert's writings (six being an evil number, of course)? His KKKonservatism Revealed!
Why, I'll bet Roberts has hidden messages even in his soundbites. Perhaps his White House announcement, played backwards, says "I bury Paul" or maybe "a serviceable villian".
Ooooh; shivers.
Matt: One could argue that, if one forgot that "civil" also means "of the city" (and by extension the State, much like politics is not literally of the population anymore).
Thus the original use of "civil war", that of Rome (Caesar vs. Sulla, wasn't it?).
Bob: Huh? There were "two parties" involved. Even if one supposed that the Confederacy wasn't a "real" country for whatever reason of federal law (an argument I've always found unconvincing - a State exists when it actually does exist, even if someone else says it's illegal and eventually conquers it), it was certainly a party; otherwise who was fighting the Union?
One can make the argument that the post-Civil War actions of the United States established the legality of secession. After all, the victorious Union divided the defeated states into Federally-administered territories, forced them to rewrite their pre-war constitutions, and made them go through re-admission by Congress, rather than treat them as unseceeded states that simply had contained rebels.
In any case, the "War Between the States" seems to capture the character of the war more accurately than "Civil War", especially when things like Kentucky's declaration of neutrality and West Virginia seeing a need to seceded from its state to stay in the Union are factored in.
“War Between the States” is, obviously, a Southernism although not, as has been pointed out, quite as strident a Southernism as other terms used to describe the conflict. Roberts is definitely a Northerner by background and education so the use of the term does seem peculiar to me—perhaps he was attempting to curry favor some how.
I grew up in a Border State and the issue continued to be something of a sensitive one. Civil War battles were fought within walking distance of my home and I had many classmates with great-great-grandfathers who had fought against each other in some of those battles. My own great-great-grandfathers fought for the Union.
I don't think we should make too much of the diction but it is peculiar.
By act of secession, the Southern states put themselves outside the context in which "legality" resides.
So was it legal? No. Was it illegal? No, because they no longer were subject to the Constitution. It only became illegal -after the war- when the South was reabsorbed.
Perhaps it means he was educated by the same system I was where we were taught that the proper name for that war is "The War Between the States" and he remembered his 9th grade history teacher's admonitions to get it right.
Suiggler: I doubt if that was the case in Indiana, but even if it were, going to elite schools, as he did, would have brought home the message that that's not the way enlightened people talk. I learned "War Between the States" as I was growing up in Delaware, but I would never have been so reckless as to say that later in life, especially in law school. It would expose you to disapproval. Anyway, in law, there are many occasions to refer to the Civil War and the term Civil War is always used.
Well let's see. Doesn't it depend on context? I mean, people often complain that they are quoted out of context. What are some possible contexts to this Roberts quotation? It might be in the judicial context, in which case the possibilities are Civil as opposed to Criminal. Might we wish to refer to the Criminal War? Well, possibly, since we are always engaged in a war against crime. But do we really want to suggest that either of the 2 combatant parties were criminals? Or that the war itself was a crime--literally, not figuratively. Won't do, obviously. Well, how about the "Miss Manners" context--as in, "Keep a civil tongue in your head." In that case, it might be civil as opposed to rude. Do we want to refer, then, to the Rude War? But wait, that might mean a raw, unfinished, or clumsily done war. Well, maybe it was rude in all senses, then. Hmmm.
Do you not see how ridiculous all this gets? Well, of course you do. But that won't matter to the left, who are increasingly adept at not only splitting hairs that already exist, but also at creating hairs to split. Yikes. Sign me up for the corn-kernel search brigade, then.
Post a Comment