Readers Write: Causes of the Civil War, Trump's legal troubles, light rail

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here . ••• D.J. Tice's recent commentary fails to clarify how "dogmas" of the present "confuse the Civil War debate" because Tice's own dogma is barking up the wrong tree ( "Dogmas of the stormy present confuse Civil War debate," Opinion Exchange, Jan.

10). Tice rejects the notion that "the Civil War was about slavery" because President Abraham Lincoln was, in order to preserve the Union, initially willing to negotiate a solution to the secession without demanding the end of slavery in the seceding states. However, Tice correctly notes that Lincoln would never compromise regarding expansion of slavery to other states.

Any negotiation would fail because of … slavery. Tice opines that the Civil War was about "secession, not slavery," and "secession was the ultimate states' rights claim." This is precisely the Lost Cause dogma that reinvents and whitewashes the origins of the "War of Northern Aggression." But why in fact did the South secede? Contradicting his criticism of those who state the Civil War was about slavery, Tice must concede that the "secession part" and "slavery part" "could not be separated." The South seceded to preserve slavery.

If the South were truly interested in preserving states' rights, the Confederate Constitution would not have denied a state's right to free slaves or restrict their travel. Article IV of that Constitution expressly guaranteed slave owners' right to travel "with their slaves and other property" and further required that in any new states joining the Confederacy "the institution of negro slavery … shall be recognized and protected." Secession was the means to the end of preserving slavery, not states' rights.

Brad Engdahl, Golden Valley ••• Tice apparently has taken it upon himself to speak out against the current belief from liberal authorities of all walks of life that the Civil War was fought over slavery, rather than secession. "But what everyone knew at the time was that secession, not slavery, was what turned a bitter political and moral conflict into a bloodbath." And, he makes a good case to prove his point.

His quotes of Lincoln are convincing. And to all good argument, I say: Yeah. So what? As the old expression says, "It's academic." Much more relevant is the enduring impact of slavery on the tens of millions of Black Americans who are not experiencing the benefits and opportunities of community that we white folks are.

And that's right here, right now. But thank you, Mr. Tice. I can now be comfortable with the knowledge that there was probably more than one main cause for the Civil War. Richard Masur, Minneapolis "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." — Richard Nixon Imagine what could happen if the courts were to agree with Trump's assertion that presidents are free to task the military with killing off rivals, as long as Congress agrees.

First, rival candidates in Congress should watch their backs. Members of the opposition party should tread carefully, too, at least until the president's private army has killed off enough rivals to frighten the rest into compliance and ensure congressional approval of his actions. But why stop there? After a president has secured a rubber stamp from Congress, why not send SEAL teams to kill off uncooperative judges? There is nothing in this argument that exempts the judiciary.

By this time the Constitution would be in shreds, anyway. Then, if the military is free to kill on U.S. soil, the governors, legislatures and judiciary in several states should be on high alert, too. Would this mean civil war? All this would seem far fetched, except for the words, actions and avowed intentions of the person who wants to assert these powers.

One final warning, these powers could be used by any president. John M. Widen, Minneapolis ••• I have recently been avoiding anything Trump related as it invokes fear and anxiety about our future democracy. However, the Jan. 10 headline "Judges skeptical of Trump immunity claim" grabbed my attention.

The skepticism of the three judge panel overseeing former President Trump's assertion that he cannot be prosecuted for anything he did while in the White House has given me hope that not everyone in this country is blinded by this narcissistic, impulsive, undisciplined and law defying individual that was once in charge of our country.

Trump's attorneys assert that he can literally have his opponent assassinated and escape prosecution if he is the president. The very laws that he takes an oath to uphold when he takes office allow him to violate and be free of any criminal prosecution, according to his attorneys and Trump himself.

Considering that Trump has already threatened revenge on those who oppose him, this is extremely disturbing. Karen Watters, Stillwater ••• I am not a zealot for President Donald Trump. We should just be aware that in future elections one party will charge the other party's candidates with treason, insurrection and various felonies.

More than 150 years ago, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that (according to author Joel Richard Paul) intending to commit treason and advocating for treason are not treason. To define these acts as treason was to allow the government to restrict free speech. Treason was required to be an overt act.

That an individual had to actually physically commit that act. Any other conclusions would be unconstitutional. And an amendment to the Constitution would be required to define treason in any other way. We may be surprised how the Supreme Court rules. Thomas E. Oakes, Eden Prairie ••• Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution is a slam dunk. Forget the pundits, log off your computer, shut off the TV. Just read it. In plain language it says that if you participate in insurrection you may not serve in elected office. Trump created the insurrection. We saw him do so on live TV. No amount of clever lawyering or parsing of language changes that fact.

Republicans need a new candidate and soon. Many will be angry. Some will be violent. It's immaterial. The U.S. Constitution is crystal clear on the matter. Just read it. Jay Richardson, Minneapolis The Southwest light rail project is 10 years late and over budget at twice the dollar amount? ( "New price tag for Southwest LRT: $2.86B," Jan.

10.) I can't think of any other project where there would be the patience or the acceptance of this absurdity. These type of projects are being done across the country and the world with similar challenges and barriers. The prudent approach would've been to grab similar and like experiences somewhere in the world to model our budget and timing after.

As a taxpayer, would you accept this personally? Would you have your job if a project you were in charge of ran 10 years late and at twice the budget? $1.5 billion of excess cost could do an enormous amount to solve our affordable housing crisis. Thousands of additional units could be built. This is not surprising to me as most of these projects are sold on a vision, and we become committed early when the budget and timing is secondary because it's too hard to back out.

Everyone, from the elected officials and staff at the Metropolitan Council to Hennepin County to the contractors, should be held accountable for this absurdity. It's even more disappointing that the final budget number is $200 million higher than the Office of the Legislative Auditor's estimate in 2022.

Paul Donovan, Minneapolis.