The origins of bunk

The history of a word which is very familiar to skeptics carries some important lessons.

Most skeptics are familiar with the term 'bunk', (or perhaps 'bunkum') with its associated skeptical activity of debunking. The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that it means 'Humbug, nonsense'. And, of course, Henry Ford told us that history is bunk.

But why bunk? The word has several perfectly legitimate uses. It can be a type of bed, or a plant from which drugs can be made, and also it refers to part of a sled. None of these meanings has any obvious connection to empty claptrap, so how did nonsense come to be termed 'bunk?'

The answer lies in politics and slavery, and goes back nearly 200 years. Let us go back, in imagination, to the US Congress of February 1820. The Representatives were nearly exhausted. A highly contentious issue was being discussed, and had been the subject of argument for about a month. This was the status of the proposed state of Missouri, the first new state which would be west of the great Mississippi River. The question was, should Missouri be allowed to have slaves, or must it be free?

A great deal hung on the outcome of questions like this. The US began as a string of colonies down the east coast of America. After independence the Americans moved inland, setting up new states as they went. The southern states had become wedded to a slave economy, while many northerners regarded slavery with horror. As a result, the entry of each new state was watched closely by both sides. If too many slave or non-slave states entered the union, then partisans might be able to force legislation through Congress. An uneasy balance ensued, with slave and free states being admitted in roughly equal numbers.

The congressmen of 1820 were weary. They had been arguing and yelling for about a month on this 'Missouri Question'. Eventually, they forged the Missouri Compromise; the compromise allowed slavery in Missouri and some southwestern territories, but not in a huge swathe of northwestern land. The compromise, with additions, held for about 40 years before it collapsed and war ensued. It was an ugly political measure, but it was the best that either side could obtain.

Right at the end of this debate, Representative Felix Walker, of Buncombe in North Carolina, rose to speak. He did not complete his speech. According to legend, his words were so empty of meaning, so worthless, that other congressmen began to shout him down. He persisted, replying that he had to speak 'For Buncombe!' The cries grew louder and eventually he was persuaded to sit down. The City of Washington Gazette - whether out of kindness or cruelty - printed his speech in full the next day.

The legend grew that Felix Walker had made an utterly worthless speech, simply seeking to fool the people of Buncombe into thinking that he was working hard at representing them. So the custom developed that, when someone was speaking simply for the sake of appearances, he was described ' perhaps with a wink ' as speaking 'for Buncombe', and then 'Bunkum,' and finally 'Bunk.' So the name of a southern US town became the label for nonsense.

The town of Buncombe has put the best face on this it can. Outside the town is a sign commemorating the way that Representative Walker gave a whole new meaning to the term 'Buncombe'. The exact meaning, naturally, is not explained.

The quintessence of bunk

When I learned about the word's origins, I became curious about the original speech. What, I wondered, was so awful about Walker's words that he was howled down by his fellow congressmen? What would the quintessence of bunk look like? So I located Walker's original speech and read it.

Rather to my astonishment, Walker's speech is not bunk. The original piece of 'bunkum' does not conform to the definition at all. Indeed, if you want a summary of the arguments advanced by one side in the debate, Walker's speech does a good job of making the key points.

I should make two important points before moving on. I suspect most skeptics would agree with my stance that slavery is a total evil, and that the northern anti'slavers like Abraham Lincoln and William Lloyd Garrison were completely in the right. Therefore, we might feel unsympathetic to Walker. Still, we should remember that millions of people supported slavery, and it was his job to represent them. And, of course, a speech can support a bad cause without being vacuous: the two are not logically linked. Second, the speech is appallingly long'winded. It is just under 5000 words long, and at a guess, its entire content could probably be stated in about a fifth of that length. Its stance and its wordiness can prejudice us against the fact that it makes about a dozen important points.

What sort of things does Walker say? He freely concedes that slavery is an evil, arguing only that abolition is probably more evil yet. He makes the point that the current slave'owners did not originate slavery, and that the people they brought from Africa were not free originally. They might well, he thinks, be better off in the US even as slaves. Preventing slavery from spreading across the Mississippi River will not free a single slave. He also points out that the 'family' of American states is likely to be torn apart by conflict over this issue, the most terrible conflict imaginable. He regards Americans from states in the North and East as his brethren, and is appalled that they don't regard him in the same way.

The value of Walker's speech

Skeptics can exercise their critical faculties by reading Walker's speech. It provides good practice in cutting through verbiage to see the key points beneath. In addition, it is useful practice to refute the different arguments. For example, it is perfectly true that current (ie 19th century) American slaveowners did not originate slavery. On the other hand, those who perpetuate an evil, and benefit from it, must acknowledge some responsibility for that evil. In addition, they must not be surprised if they are regarded badly by those who seek to eliminate the evil. The other points can be addressed in a similar way.

On one point, though, Walker is completely correct. He points to the dangers of conflict within the union, and goes on to predict terrible consequences if antislavery legislation is forced through. The last paragraph of his speech goes like this:

"Sir in the last war we lost our thousands, but if you will force upon us this restriction, you may, in the end, in the course of your mistaken policy, which if persisted in, go on with increasing rapidity, at last compel us take leave of each other, and lead to an event that may prostrate the lives of the ten thousands of your choice citizens and fatally terminate in the dissolution of our confederated government."

Walker was exactly right, though he did not live to see his prediction confirmed. The Missouri Compromise and its successors held for 40 years. When compromises finally came apart, the American Civil War claimed not tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands of lives, and left large parts of the country in ruins. On this point Walker was terribly, hideously right.

So why bunk?

I hope that I have justified my argument that Walker's speech, although mediocre, is by no means empty claptrap. It certainly does not justify the appellation of 'bunk'. Why, then, has it acquired such a bad reputation? I suspect the context explains this. The politicians had been struggling for a month to come up with a solution. Undoubtedly there had been hours of bargaining and debate in offices, bars and corridors. These discussions would not be concerned with general principles, but with hard facts and questions about what each side might find acceptable. Therefore, when Walker spoke to exhausted congressmen, his general points fell upon deaf ears.

This shows that context is an important factor in getting your viewpoint across. If your message isn't appropriate for a particular audience, it probably won't be heard. Sometimes you can tailor your message so that it will be heard but sometimes - as with Felix Walker - it is impossible.

Another important point is directly related to skepticism. Popular perception is not always right. Walker's speech was not empty claptrap, but it has gone down in history as exactly that. There is always value in examining the evidence for popular myths and beliefs and finding out how much truth is in them.

References

You can read Felix Walker's speech at: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Missouri_Question:_Speech_of_Mr._Walker,_of_N.C. An account of the incident can be found at: www.appalachianhistory.net/2012/02/north_carolina_politician_gives_us_word.html