Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Regarding news Thursday morning about one of the presidential candidates' comment on the root causes of the Civil War, hopefully this brief note will help clarify this complex issue a bit. The roots of the Civil War are intricate. There were three main root causes:

1. Slavery

• Economic foundation: Slavery, at its core, was deeply embedded in the Southern agrarian economy, fueling economic and cultural divides.

• Social and cultural divide: The institution of slavery became intertwined with Southern society, shaping its social structure and cultural values. The North, on the other hand, increasingly opposed the moral and ethical aspects of slavery.

2. Economic and sectional differences

• Economics: The North's industrialization contrasted starkly with the South's reliance on agriculture and slave labor, leading to sectional tensions.

• Sectionalism: Economic differences, with the North's industrialized model vs. the South's agrarian focus, deepened sectionalism.

3. States' rights and differing views on federal power

• States' rights doctrine: Debates over states' rights and federal power intensified as the South advocated for states' rights, often linked to preserving slavery.

• Federal power: Meanwhile, the North supported a stronger federal government, particularly regarding slavery's expansion, heightening tensions between regions.

Historians Eric Foner ("The Fiery Trial") and James McPherson ("Battle Cry of Freedom") offer in-depth analyses and comprehensive examinations of these root causes, based on primary sources, economic data and political developments.

It is prudent for all of us to step outside our culture to see the shackles it has placed on our thinking. Studying and learning history is essential so that we can hopefully do better.

Massoud Amin, Hudson, Wis.

The writer is former director and professor emeritus, Technological Leadership Institute, University of Minnesota.

There is a growing immigration crisis, with thousands of migrants heading toward the U.S. border. Economic, political and climate chaos in Central and South America are making people desperate to flee for a better life to the north.

The Constitution delegates to Congress the power "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization … throughout the United States" thus preventing states from bestowing citizenship. The president is responsible for enforcing the immigration laws passed by Congress.

President Joe Biden is being vilified and held responsible for the inaction of Congress. Both parties are to blame, as there has not been substantive immigration reform since 1986. The public appears to be uninformed as to where to lay blame, and the GOP is happy to sit on their hands and watch the bedlam.

I suggest that the president travel to the border and shine a light on the issue. Use this as an opportunity for a national civics lesson. The administration should not shy away from the problem but rather urge people to demand their representatives do their job and pass immigration reform. Now.

Susan Barrett, Mora, Minn.

A Dec. 27 letter writer recently questioned why the archival Christmas editorials from the Minneapolis Morning Tribune in 1939 and 1961, republished by Star Tribune Opinion on Dec. 25 of this year, were not edited for inclusivity. I can think of several reasons, first among them that it would be dishonest.

The editorials are a product of their times. Editing these period pieces would provide a distorted picture of the original editorials and the time in which they were written. Only if we have an accurate picture of the past can we know it, evaluate it, and determine whether things can change, have changed or should change.

I understand the desire to impose modern sensibilities on what are now relics of the past. To do so, however, changes history. Such editing would alter the facts. It would possibly slant or misrepresent the sense of the editorial. It can also change the rhythm and cadence of the author, to their detriment. To follow the writer's suggestion to its logical conclusion could result in: "Eighty-seven years ago, our forebears brought forth … ."

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. (Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Sexist pronouns in original.)

Brian R. Martens, Bloomington

•••

The Dec. 27 letter writer complains that the language of the archival editorials wasn't "inclusive" and suggests updating it by replacing "man" and "men" with "people." But I had a different reaction.

When I first read those two pieces, of course I noticed the old ways of referring to generic persons and collective human beings. I thought for a few minutes about how ideas about nonsexist language have come along in recent decades and have shaped our conventions for speaking and writing. However, Star Tribune Opinion's decision to reprint those editorials without updating the old-fashioned language mainly made me think about what was happening in the world in 1939 and in this country in 1961 — the similarities and differences between then and now.

If we only listen to the past through the ears of the immediate present, in the name of "inclusivity," for instance, then we miss the lessons the past has to offer. And there are many ways we can bring an anachronism into the present short of erasing it or "updating" it.

For many years teaching cultural anthropology I often had occasion to read aloud to the class passages from older texts that used the word "mankind." As I spoke, I would add as an aside "or, as we would say today, 'humankind.' " But I wouldn't make that change without letting my audience know I was inserting an annotation. That way one gets to hear both the old and the new together.

There are many ways to be contemporary without altering old documents. And there are many reasons to be interested in what editorial writers were writing 84 and 62 years ago without cleaning up their language to make it more "inclusive."

Liz Coville, St. Paul

From "Mia highlights photos by and for Native people" (Dec. 26): "Decisions for the project were 'grounded in Indigenous methodologies, the tenets of which include consensus, relationship building, mutual respect and reciprocity,' according to the catalog."

I suggest we elect more Native people to Congress.

Jan Strommen, Hudson, Wis.