The War Over Gun Control

1. John Briggs November 7, 2017 at 2:04 pm Reply

   We did indeed reach hearts and minds about slavery. Without the powers of persuasion that Lincoln and others exercised between 1854 and 1860, the Republican party, would not have been formed of such disparate elements to stand against the spread of slavery into the territories and to promote its "ultimate distinction." Some of those elements included western settlers who were vulnerable to Democrats' appeals to their Nimbyism: no slaves in my back yard and you can have slaves in yours. The new Republican party was not a war party. Lincoln was not elected as a war president. His restraint during the siege of Fort Sumter proved the depth of Lincoln's refusal to follow advisors urging him to attack the South. In 1860 Seward failed to win the Republican presidential nomination precisely because he spoke without caution about an "impending conflict" and northern armies sweeping into the south. The Emancipation Proclamation came in January 1863 -- late by abolitionists' standards -- precisely because Lincoln wanted to ensure that the most militarily crucial border state, slave-owning Kentucky, stayed in the Union until leaving it was no longer a viable option. Again, his powers of persuasion, explicit and implicit were crucial to the outcome. Yes, there was war. But Lincoln never spoke beforehand in favor of it or declared it inevitable. The danger of In the 1860 Cooper Union Address he concluded by indeed invoking the "sword" held in the hand of the Union should the South secede and war commence, but his emphasis is upon the holding of the sword, not its use. His "House Divided " speech spoke of the inevitability of a divided house's fall, not by war but by the internal political and psychological conversion of one side by the other -- for better or for worse. The modern trend toward distrust of government, now shared -- since the last electron -- in large measure across the political spectrum, is now rivaled by elites' distrust of benighted commoners, and vice versa. If Japan is the model for gun control, why shouldn't s gun owner wonder when all the guns will be collected? Why shouldn't a gun control advocate begin assuming that house-to-house searches might be necessary to bring that change about? Neither view does much for our struggling republic. I say, "Remember Lincoln."
   • Caroline Miller November 7, 2017 at 3:31 pm Reply

     Well, you wrote the book on Lincoln. But proclamation or not, it took the Civil War to end slavery. (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/slavery-abolished-in-americaslavery.) As for changing hearts and minds, for some yes. In my view, we are still fighting for those hearts and minds. That's what Black Lives Matter is all about. I understand your point about divisions in our society that go beyond the question of gun control and how those distrusts might impded solutions to various social disonnects. But that isn't new, is it? Frankly, I don't know how Japan managed its gun control movement. An intersting question but the answer is probably irreleavant to the United States. If we ever decide to stop the killings, I've no diea how we'd go about enacting and enforcing new laws. Like our health care plan, we'll go our own way and ignore the successful solutions of other countries, because we aren't like other coungries by history or culture. All I know is I'm sick of the killing, and the flags at halfmast, and the flowers left to decay at the crime scenes, empty rituals that may be heartfelt but are incapable of bringing one dead child back. Somebody has to start trusting somebody. People have to talk across the divide. I'm sure you agree.
2. Susan October 30, 2018 at 3:01 pm Reply

   Both comments above are thought provoking and true in most respects. Thank you.
   • Caroline Miller October 30, 2018 at 4:48 pm Reply

     Thank you for your thoughts.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.