If we lose our democracy, it's because we lost our ability to communicate first

Anyone confused about the cause of the Civil War is free to get it straight from the horse’s mouth by reading the southern-state secession documents penned by the fire-eaters themselves.

They are not shy about stating their reason. It is not “complex” in their eyes; it is not some accumulation of this and that which finally reached the boiling point.

It’s slavery. They can’t stop yakking about it. Slavery, slavery, slavery.

All perceived federal transgressions — commercial restrictions, protection of special privileges, waste and corruption — were, in Georgia’s eyes, done with one sinister goal in mind: ending slavery.  “Anti-slavery is (the federal government’s) mission and its purpose,” Georgia declared.

Slavery, said the Confederate leaders, is more of a reason to break away from the Union than were the grievances of the colonists who declared their independence from the crown.

But they weren’t done. America, said Texas, was “established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”

Such language is not permitted today, even if, unfortunately, such thoughts still are. This is due to many things, not the least of which is the denigration of the English language, whose imprecise usage has provided the dark corner in which such evil can fester and grow.

If we are to lose our democracy, as some people fear, it is only because we first lost our language, which is to say our ability to communicate and understand each other through words, rhetoric and logic.

Nikki Haley’s awkward response to the question of what caused the Civil War was an assault on history to be sure, but it was just as much an assault on the English language:

“I mean, I think it always comes down to the role of government, and what the rights of the people are,” she stammered. “And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people ...”

Her verb-starved reply got worse from there, as she did her best to make it sound as if the Rebels were fighting for motherhood and apple pie, because “slavery” has become a word whitewashed from the conservative lexicon to the point that if you so much as mention it out loud you are unfit for public office.

This linguistic pussyfooting, designed not to offend the easily offendable, leads incredibly to the notion that slavery and freedom are codependent. And there are people out there who will believe it.

Just as fraught was the language of three Ivy League presidents on Capitol Hill who, while assuring everyone that they found calls for genocide to be “personally repugnant,” nevertheless maintained that “We have a long standing open expression policy that makes sure our open expression policies are followed.”

To which the nation correctly responded, “Huh?”

The clear and correct answer — college campuses have a long history political dissent, and unless that speech is at risk of inciting imminent violence, it’s protected by law, so if you have a problem with that take it up with your buddies on the Supreme Court — would have been a great chance to educate not just some Congressional shrews, but a public that needs and deserves straight answers.

Indeed, foggy thinking on the right has been enabled by foggy thinking on the left.

We do the poor no favors by calling them “underserved” because it diminishes their plight. We do no favors to Black children by excusing incorrect conjugation of verbs under the guise of “culture,” because it invites bigots to see culture as ignorance. We do no favors to white children by excusing sloppy usage under the guise  of “creativity” for the same reason. We do immigrants no favors by resisting calls for making English our official language because it encourages isolation.

Altogether, playing free and loose with language stands E Pluribus Unum on its head: We have taken one language and so fractured and distorted it that division in our ranks becomes inevitable. We all speak in codes according to our tribes with no idea how to connect with anyone outside our tightly drawn boundaries.

Worse, it frees those with nefarious intent to say one thing designed to be interpreted two different ways by two different subsets of English-speakers — call one side to arms, while assuring the other that you mean no harm.

Only in such an atmosphere can voting rights be seen as “unconstitutional” and can those who would overthrow their country’s government classify themselves as “patriots. Perhaps it shouldn’t surprise us that people today have so much trouble understanding 1860 Confederates; they spoke English.

Tim Rowland is a Herald-Mail columnist.

Billionaires have amassed colossal power. It's too bad they use it so poorly

Win a bowl game, get doused with mayonnaise: Corporate sponsors demand a lot from coaches

This article originally appeared on The Herald-Mail: To preserve democracy, learn to communicate plainly