The principal reason for secession in 1861 was because they had lost control of the United States government for the first time ever

You can find the most interesting things in the strangest places. From An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times’ 1619 Project by Tom Mackaman on the World Socialist Web Site. The provenance of the publication raises all sorts of alarm bells but the substance of the article is good and interesting.

Mackaman starts out critiquing the New York Times' racist screed, The 1619 Project.

Q. What was your initial reaction to the 1619 Project?

A. Well, I didn’t know anything about it until I got my Sunday paper, with the magazine section entirely devoted to the 1619 Project. Because this is a subject I’ve long been interested in I sat down and started to read some of the essays. I’d say that, almost from the outset, I was disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery, which was clearly, obviously, not an exclusively American institution, but existed throughout history. And slavery in the United States was only a small part of a larger world process that unfolded over many centuries. And in the United States, too, there was not only slavery but also an antislavery movement. So I thought the account, which emphasized American racism—which is obviously a major part of the history, no question about it—but it focused so narrowly on that part of the story that it left most of the history out.

So I read a few of the essays and skimmed the rest, but didn’t pursue much more about it because it seemed to me that I wasn’t learning very much new. And I was a little bit unhappy with the idea that people who did not have a good knowledge of the subject would be influenced by this and would then have a biased or narrow view.

The New York Times publishing false or skewed information is nothing new and Mackaman soon moves beyond 1619.

The breadth and depth of McPherson's knowledge is impressive. All of it is interesting. Here is one detail. I have been fascinated by the four models of slavery abolition. Earliest was the British model where Parliament elected to compensate slave owners by purchasing their slaves, the cost going onto the newly established national debt. The Fench did it by fiat after their Revolution and then later reinstated slavery. The Haitians abolished slavery by overthrow followed by genocide. The US did it through Civil War.

Q. Yet another argument that’s made is that the Civil War, and emancipation in the United States, came late, compared to Great Britain which did in 1833, and it’s argued, “Look, the British did it voluntarily without a great civil war.”

A. Well antislavery in Great Britain emerged in the late 18th century, with Wilberforce and Buxton and so on, and became focused early on the abolition of slavery everywhere. In the British constitution Parliament is all-powerful. And there’s nothing like the protections for the institution of slavery that exist in the American Constitution in the British political order. If you gain a majority in Parliament, which the antislavery forces in Britain did in the early 1830s, you can pass legislation banning slavery, which is exactly what happened. And the slaveholders in the Caribbean, who obviously opposed this, had very little power in Parliament.

Meanwhile, the slaveholders in the United States actually controlled the government through their domination of the Democratic Party, right through the 1850s. In fact, the principal reason for secession in 1861 was because they had lost control of the United States government for the first time ever.

That's an interesting insight. I have previously focused on the fact that Britain abolished slavery because they had newly established the mechanisms for a national debt. This allowed them to fund the extravagant costs of the Napoleonic wars. It also allowed them to pay off slave owners.

In that period, the US was still struggling with even the idea of a National Bank, much less a federal debt.

McPherson's observation about the difference in authority between a representative federal democracy and a British parliament are a good point. Any parliamentary system is much more capable of making radical policy changes than a representative federal democracy.

On a separate topic, I have long been dismissive of concerns that we are so polarized as to make a civil war possible. I think that is simply motivated hysteria. The chattering class who makes these prognostications are unrepresentative of working Americans and are a tiny, tiny minority.

McPerhson's comment does not change my mind but does force me to check my confidence.

The principal reason for secession in 1861 was because they (Democrats) had lost control of the United States government for the first time ever.

Well, yes. I don't think history repeats itself, but the observation is a none-the-less sobering echo of today.