Graber and Dred Scott

Finished Graber's book on Dred Scott, and plan to devote several posts to the work.  The book is certainly interesting and provocative, and it is well-written for something out of the legal academy.  The organizing idea for the book is an examination of the Dred Scott decision in historical context, with some attention to the defensibility of the attitudes of some leading political figures.  There are some scattered discussions of the general problem of responding to evil embodied in a constitutional arrangement.  As I said, an interesting book.  It is also a failed work.  In a number of respects, the crucial issues get walked around, and in some important places in the argument it is not clear that Graber understands what his arguments imply.  Those are all part of what makes the book interesting - that it puts one to thinking about the subjects beyond just the words of the author.  Because it is well-written and not terribly long, it should reach a wider than usual audience.  At least I hope it does.

Before getting to the substance of the book, a couple of underlying ideas -- basic to the investigation of the book are a couple of ideas that are worth pausing over, independent of Graber's work.  The first is recognition that slavery is central to the nature and history of the Constitution.  That seems to me right, and well worth being reminded of.  The second is that the Civil War was probably a calamity, at least in the sense that it what it achieved was not worth the cost.  That is a surprising position, but it seems implied by a number of arguments Graber advances (and without which the analysis will not work).  The third, although less prominent, is the thought that the Civil War was avoidable and that the fault for its occurrence lay with Lincoln.  That is enough to stimulate a little chatting.

Comments

[Mark A. Graber]

First, much thanks for the comments and engaging the book (for a person who spend most of his time in political science, being told one writes fairly clearly for a law professor is high praise indeed!). Two rather minor points, just to clear up what I believe (and maybe they were not clear in the book).

1. I would actually fight the Civil War knowing the result. The real argument of the book is that the good team wins only as often as the bad team, that not knowing who wins the war, I choose not to fight.

2. I do think a Civil War was avoidable in 1860. Whether it was avoidable in 1880, I do not know. My pacifist tendencies (tendencies only) say, stall and hope for something good to happen.

I think none of the above is written in stone. I.e., smart people can disagree. But always happy to provoke a conversation.