The Lesson We Should Learn From The Civil War

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

This month, 150 years ago, the Civil War, or “War Between the States,” began with the attack on Fort Sumter, South Carolina. This month, 146 years ago, that War on the battlefield ended with the fall of Richmond, and the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Courthouse (though the military and political occupation of the states that had formed the Confederacy would continue for another 11 years). In between those two Aprils in the 1861 and 1865, on a cold and overcast day in November, 1863, President Lincoln crystallized the purpose for which the War would be fought to a conclusion:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.…

----------

…It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us…

----------

– that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom

----------

– and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Over the last few weeks several pundits have been wringing their hands over a renewed debate over the cause of the Civil War: was it state’s rights, was it slavery, or was it something else altogether? Moreover, the perennial debates have re-emerged over the propriety of flying a version of the flag of the Confederacy in public places. Most of the pundits seem to be chastising Americans who don’t seem to “get it” that the War was about slavery, and these same editorialists continue to froth at the mouth over the sight of the Stars and Bars.

I have a slightly different take on all of this that I’d like to share with you, and which I hope will add to mix of thoughts we consider as the nation’s Sesquicentennial of the Civil War starts its four-year observance.

I want to start by sharing an observation that would not have been accurate when I first came to Texas as a young man 31 years ago: the Civil War is finally over. Some time over these last three decades we stopped looking at each other with distrust or disdain while asking “where are your from;” we stopped celebrating a holiday for Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee and, instead, began celebrating a holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr., and universally celebrating Memorial Day; the party of Lincoln became the dominant political force in Dixie and selected a Chairman who was African-American; and we have elected an African-American as President of the United States.

For those people younger than 40 who grew-up as the final social remnants of this War faded from our habits and customs, it is hard to appreciate how miraculous this development really has been. For many of us who trace the roots of our family trees to the United States that exited before 1860, our family histories and heir-looms often include cherished stories and artifacts from the War, while for some those histories and heir-looms remind us of a darker, more painful memory of our failure to live up to our ideals. The collective memory fueled by these family histories helped continue habits and customs of regional, social, political, and racial animosities for generations—but which now seem so odd that they are truly hard to explain to young people today.

I was blessed to grow-up learning a very balanced story of the War. My ancestors fought on both sides of the War, and I grew-up with stories and heir-looms from both sides of the conflict. But I also grew-up in the region of Central Illinois, where Lincoln rode the circuit, and where he and Douglas debated in 1858. Surrounded by Lincoln’s memory, we were taught that, although the Confederacy had better generals and military strategy, and defended arguably correct interpretations of the Constitution and the law as it existed at that time, the purpose of the War described that day in Gettysburg by Lincoln, and the ultimate preservation of our nation that resulted from the War, were just and right.

Somehow, after all these generations, we have learned to retain a pride in the heritage of our families and communities, while at long last putting aside the animosities that we held for so long. Now, for all but a few diehards, we share a belief that preserving the nation and its founding ideals, and working to make those ideals a reality for all men and women who call themselves Americans, was just and right.

But to acknowledge all of these developments doesn’t mean that we have stopped thinking—or should ever stop thinking—about what caused that War, because those underlying causes are deeply imbedded in the continuing American experience:

* The division of our governmental responsibilities between states and the federal government;

* The different influences that the vast and varied geography spanning North America continue to have on regional and national economics and politics;

* The central influence that religion has played in developing our national character and shaping public debates;

* The ambition to create one people out of settlers and immigrants from every corner of the globe, and to equally protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of each individual; and

* The restlessness of spirit that liberty agitates.

By the 1840s, the institution of slavery had become the catalyst by which each of these causes combined to tear the country apart.

Although Americans have always shared a restless spirit, the 15 years that preceded the War may have been the most restless in our history. Our borders expanded through war and annexation to include what is now the entire Continental United States. New territories were being formed and settled, and new states admitted into the Union. America began to absorb one of the first great waves of European immigration due to drought, famine and revolution. Gold was discovered in California, which caused the greatest internal migration the country has ever experienced, and which invited immigration from across the Pacific, all of which would keep parts of California in a state of violent turmoil until the start of the War. The opposition Whig party would disintegrate into several factions arguing over the political impact of these issues, and slavery, and would eventually lead to the formation of a wholly new political party by the mid-1850s—the Republican Party. Central to all of these phenomena was the question of what to do about the institution of slavery.

By the 1840s the continuation of slavery was being challenged throughout the Western World, but it truly was coming into stark contrast with America’s ideals. However, no one quite knew whether and how a society could last that was not based on, and run by a homogeneous race, ethnicity, clan, tribe, or religion. Even the most enlightened thinkers of the day were pessimistic that a society could be maintained among people of different races (let alone people of different races who also came from different ethnic groups, clans, tribes and/or religious traditions) largely because it simply had never been tried or accomplished by any other society. This question impacted not only the debate about slavery, but also the fierce debate over immigration during the 1850s.

Throughout the political and economic debate over slavery, religious leaders were on both sides of the issue, created religious teachings to support each side, and lent a tone of moral fervor to each side’s hardening positions. These hardened positions split denominations and congregations, as well as communities.

The differences in climate and geography between the North and the South had created completely different economies and societies. Slavery was not just a moral and political issue, it was an issue that impacted the credit and solvency of the entire region, because slaves were used as collateral for credit throughout the South. The Southern economy, in turn, perpetuated plantations, small farms and small towns, while the North had begun its development of larger farms and urbanization based on a free-market for labor. By the end of the 1850s, though, the economics of slavery was beginning to unravel due to prolonged droughts in Europe and the development of high-yield cotton production in Egypt, which made Iowa farm products more valuable to our trading partners—and to our nation’s diplomacy—than Southern cotton.

The imbalance between the power of the states and the federal government prohibited the federal government from crafting a national solution to slavery. Time after time, Congress had attempted to reach compromises that addressed the slavery issue, but each time the compromises failed or were overturned by the Courts. Finally, the infamous Dredd Scott decision clarified for all that the national government lacked the power to address an issue that crossed state lines and was of national importance—the institution of slavery.

By the eve of the 1860 election, all of these causes of division between the North and the South became entangled with the issue of slavery. To glibly say that any one of the causes of division can be separated from the issue of slavery as the “cause” of the War is as wrong as saying that “slavery” was the only cause of the War. All of these problems came together over slavery to bring about the War, and “slavery” had to be resolved in order to address the underlying divisions that caused the regional conflict and end the War.

Slavery officially ended with the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution immediately after the military conflict ended, but resolving the underlying divisions took more than 100 years. Moreover, the causes of those divisions still roil our national debates today, and probably will for as long as there is an America. For instance:

* though we have expanded the scope of the power of the federal government 9 times by amendment, we still desire a limited federal government and debate the correct balance of local versus state versus federal authority;

* though mass media, mass production, and mass migration have reduced our regional economic and political differences, geography and history still combine to produce different regional viewpoints and activities that affect the nation;

* though race is no longer a source of religious dispute in this nation, the disciplines of our respective faiths still play a major role in the way we view the role of government and how we vote;

* though we have become the most heterogeneous society on Earth, we still struggle with how to assimilate new people into our nation and how to live by our ideals; and

* our desire to live as free people, and to develop our talents to their fullest potential, keep us restless and constantly in dynamic motion—both as individuals and as a society.

Rather than defend the public display of artifacts of a dispute long over—like flying the Stars and Bars over a government building—it is time to put those artifacts on our private shelves and get on with the continuing work of making our Founders’ vision work. Rather than continue to debate whether and how slavery helped cause the Civil War, we should recognize that slavery arose as the single issue that caused our divisions to become irreconcilable.

Then, we should commit to study and debate the tensions that will always exist in our society, and why, in the middle of the 1800s, they caused us to go to war with each other, in order to make sure that we never let that happen again. Through the learning that comes from such study and debate, we should gain the wisdom to never repeat that mistake.

Now that the Civil War is finally over, I hope that we start to gain such wisdom during this Sesquicentennial commemoration.

What is the Fundamental Purpose of Our Public Universities?

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

I want to congratulate our Republican legislators in both Austin and Washington, who have started the long process of addressing our fiscal problems. What they’ve passed so far is not perfect, nor everything that many of us wanted, but it has been a good and needed first step. In fact, the federal budget plan passed by the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday incorporates many good, long-term ideas that begin to address both fiscal discipline, and the need to reduce the role of the federal government in local and individual decisions. The debate Paul Ryan’s plan has started is good for the country.

Closer to home, another debate seems to be unfolding over the role of classroom teaching within our state-supported universities in Texas. It’s that debate that I would like to discuss in this post.

I want to start with definitions of three words taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition):

•Education: “The knowledge or skill obtained or developed by a learning process.” (p. 569).

•College: “An institution of higher learning that grants the bachelor’s degree in liberal arts or science or both.” (p.362).

•University: “An institution of higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master’s degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor’s degrees.” (p. 1883).

Now, let’s also look at the original provision in the Texas Constitution that authorized the eventual creation of our state-supported university systems: “The legislature shall as soon as practicable establish, organize and provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class…” (Art. 7, Sec. 10).

When you read all of this together, it’s pretty clear that the fundamental purpose of our state-supported universities is to provide an education to students—specifically, an education that can lead to the award of an undergraduate, graduate or professional degree through a process that includes learning from both teaching and research. Reading these sources, it’s also clear that teaching and research are neither distinct purposes, in and of themselves, for the existence of a university, nor are they independent functions that are separate from the process of providing an education.

Yet, if you listen to the debate over the hiring of Rick O’Donnell by the University of Texas Board of Regents, and the promotion by Governor Perry of Jeff Sandefer’s “Seven Breakthrough Solutions” for higher education (http://texashighered.com/7-solutions) you could come to the conclusion that providing an education is no longer the central purpose of our state-supported universities. Instead, you could determine that the central purpose of our universities is now to provide a source for economic growth for the communities in which they are situated, and for the state, through attracting top researchers and grants and conducting economically-beneficial research. Consistent with this new purpose, the task of providing an education and a degree now may be merely an incidental source of income to the university rather than its core mission.

Quite frankly, I find this whole debate fails to address the real problems with our educational system. Though some correction may be needed, a wholesale change in the way we hire and retain university faculty is not needed. However, the more professors and administrators attack any change, the more they make the case for the wholesale change they don’t want. In the meantime, no one is really addressing how we improve the education of our children.

On the one hand, it is true that there is evidence showing a significant shift in emphasis on some campuses from teaching and research focused on providing an education to students, to “pure” research designed to obtain independent economic benefits for the school and the community. This shift has created an imbalance in the use of public resources (as well as private grants and donations) to create and maintain facilities and faculties for “pure” research on some campuses. Perversely, on some campuses this shift has led to documented under-utilization of existing facilities, which could be more efficiently used to provide more education-related teaching and research. Implementation of a few of the “Seven Breakthroughs” might effectively address this shift and restore the proper focus of teaching and research to education, while still allowing for the incidental, yet important, “pure” research that enriches the learning process while providing an additional source of income and economic benefit. However, a wholesale change in the way universities hire and retain faculty, and provide and account for teaching and research, is not needed to fix the imbalance on some campuses; indeed, there are a lot more fundamental problems with our educational system, starting with kindergarten, that need to be prioritized and addressed over this issue.

On the other hand, the clueless and condescending reactions from some who have attacked the ideas promoted by Governor Perry, Mr. Sandefer, and Mr. O’Donnell underscore a fundamental question that many taxpayers, parents and students now have about our entire educational system: are schools operating for the benefit of the students, or for the benefit of the teachers and administrators? I think most of us outside of the educational system had thought state-supported schools at all levels operated to benefit students. However, to read some of the op-ed pieces and interviews from current and former faculty and administrators, you would think that students are merely incidental nuisances with whom they have to interact periodically while running their facilities and conducting their research. These reactions, combined with the video of teacher union protests in Wisconsin and the sentimental news stories about teacher lay-offs across this State, give credibility to the movement supporting wholesale change in the way we hire and retain teachers, professors and administrators.

While we may not need all “Seven Breakthroughs” to re-balance the functions of our universities, teachers, professors and administrators at all state-supported schools need to remember that they only have one fundamental obligation: they work for the taxpayers and the parents of this State to provide our children, young adults and adults with an education through the processes of teaching and research—everything else, including the research they conduct as part of their job, is incidental to and dependent upon meeting this fundamental obligation. Once we all get this point straight again, re-balancing the use of public resources within our universities and school systems, as well as fixing the more pressing problems with our whole educational system, should be easier to accomplish.

Reflections on Ethics and Local Government

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

This post should not be read as a comment on any specific allegations against any current elected official in the City of Houston or Harris County, or as a recommended course of action in response to those allegations. But with one City Council member having just been investigated for ethics questions related to doing business with the City, and with one County Commissioners having just been tried for bribery, I want to address the larger issues raised by the specific questions involved in those cases.

Specific questions raised by those cases are—

· When should a public official continue doing business through a private entity with the government he or she was elected to supervise?

· Where does a public official draw the line between the intent to accept gifts as part of a continued friendship, and the appearance of accepting payments for influence with the government he or she was elected to manage?

From a broader perspective, these questions, for me, raise more fundamental questions, which have nothing to do with whether a criminal or civil law has been broken:

· At what point does an elected official’s behavior violate the public’s trust?

· What should be the consequences for breaking that trust?

It is these larger questions I will address in this post.

Let’s start with two obvious, yet fundamental, points:

· First, most public officials are just like us—they do their best to be honest and to do their jobs every day with integrity.

· Second, none of us are perfect. We all make mistakes and misjudgments throughout our life—that is part of being human. Being human has never disqualified anyone from serving in public office.

However, mistakes and misjudgments made by public officials, even in matters, relationships, or transactions that normally would be considered private, affect the conduct of public affairs. The real question at the core of this issue is, at what point do arguably private misjudgments of public officials violate the public trust?

This is a question that has vexed our society since the first settlements were formed. Although our Founders addressed this issue in the Federalist Papers, and believed they were creating a national government that reduced the risk of graft and unethical use of public office through the checks and balances built into the system, they recognized that the system was not fool-proof—and history has shown us that our national government has not been scandal-free. But even a cursory review of American History shows that our most enduring problem with ethics has been at the local level of government.

Why have our local governments been so susceptible to this problem over the centuries? I can think of at least three factors that continuously intertwine to perpetuate this problem:

· none of us are angels; even when we have been raised in an atmosphere that prizes the traits and exercise of character and virtue, we periodically will succumb to temptations, fail to exercise self-restraint, and take risks that lead to making wrong choices, especially when such choices seem to benefit us without appearing to directly harm anyone else;

· the greatest external restraint on elected officials in local government was supposed to be the fact that they would not risk the humiliation to themselves or their families of being caught lying to, cheating, or stealing from their neighbors; but as our communities have grown into cities, and our neighbors have become more anonymous “voters” to our elected officials, this fear of humiliation no longer plays a strong role in restraining behavior; and

· fewer and fewer people actually pay attention to local government, know who their local officials are, or know what they do, and those that do are usually those with a financial or political incentive for gain from local government; as a result, a lot of mischief happens when no one is looking.

We can pass all the civil and criminal laws we want, and force attendance to as many “ethics” classes as possible, but without some personal restraints applied at a personal level by or on our local officials, no law or class will thwart the temptation for some to seek as much private gain as they possibly can get from public office.

So what are the answers to my questions—at what point do arguably private misjudgments of public officials violate the public trust, and what should be the consequences for that breach?

In answer to the first question, the best I can come up with is to ask our elected officials to envision what our children would think if they knew the behavior you were engaged in, or were contemplating. For instance:

· Would our children think it is right or fair to continue to do business and profit from that business with the very government you were elected to supervise?

· Would our children think it is right or fair to continue accepting gifts from a friend while that friend was seeking and obtaining business and profit from the government you were elected to manage?

· Would our children think that it is right or fair to continue such behavior without at least abstaining from the process of approving or supervising those transactions with the government you were elected to manage?

Better yet, if our children came home and told us that they were engaging in this type of behavior at school, or in an extra-curricular activity or organization, would we condone it?

If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” then a switch should flip in the brain that says “stop.” If you want to proceed with the transactions and continue to receive the benefits, then you should leave public office—there is nothing dishonorable about that choice. On the other hand, if there is no flip of the switch and you continue with the behavior, or if it flips and you still proceed with the behavior, and decide to stay in public office, I believe that the public trust has been breached regardless of whether a law has been violated. In that event, you have created the appearance that you are using your office for private gain—and the public can no longer trust that you have not used your office in this way regardless of your intentions. The consequence for violation of that trust should be exposure and censure, and, eventually, dismissal by the voters at the next election.

In the end, however, the ultimate consequence should be our vigilance as citizens to shine as much light on our local governments as we shine on our state and national governments, and to hold our local officials to the high standard that we are entitled to expect from those who have asked us for the privilege of serving our community. This vigilance is even more important today if we ever want to limit government at the federal and state levels, because we will need highly effective and ethical local governments to serve as tools for helping to rebuild our communities and schools.

If we don’t exercise that vigilance, then we will deserve the behavior and the government that results.