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

•••

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.

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

•••

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

•••

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.

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.