A Black Libertarian’s Thoughts on the Confederate Flag: No One "Won" the Civil War

In the wake of nine racially motivated murders in South Carolina, attention has focused on displays of the Confederate battle flag. Many retailers have pulled Confederate flags from their inventory. A bipartisan group of politicians and public figures have called for the removal of the flag from South Carolina’s capitol grounds.

To some, the flag represents a noble Southern heritage. To others, it evokes a vile history of racial violence. As a black libertarian, I see in the Confederate flag interwoven tragedies which echo through history.

The first tragedy is the most obvious, the one most cited, the one fueling the current debate. The Confederate flag reminds us of a time when human beings were bought and sold as chattel, when the rights of individuals were denied based on the color of their skin. The institution of slavery cannot be washed from Confederate symbolism. For that reason, it remains reasonable to question why anyone would want to associate themselves with that symbol.

The second tragedy is amplified by its obscurity, the fact that few seem to recognize or appreciate it. The original constitutional vision of the American republic took form in a compact between the several states, where they granted enumerated powers to a federal government and established a first of its kind dual-sovereignty. The ultimate check on federal authority was the capacity of the states to withdraw from the compact. Among the many causalities of the Civil War was this original vision of dual-sovereignty. Today, we pledge allegiance to a union “indivisible,” affirming the supreme authority of the federal government to dictate law among the states. We can argue whether the states retain certain powers in theory. But in practice, the feds call the shots in far more ways than the Founding Fathers ever envisioned. That’s largely a product of the Civil War.

Therefore, when I look at the Confederate battle flag as a black libertarian, I see tragedy for all parties concerned. I see the history of racism and human indignity which motivates the current debate. But I also see the loss of state sovereignty which compromised the Founding Fathers’ vision for republican government. To the extent people choose to fly the Confederate flag in honor of that latter heritage, I can’t fault them.

That said, let’s be clear why state sovereignty was lost. It was lost because the southern states delegitimized it.

Sovereignty is a loosely defined concept in our political discourse which tends to reference any claim to govern. However, the moral right to sovereignty emerges from a recognition of individual rights.

Nazi Germany held no moral claim to sovereignty, because that state rejected the moral basis upon which sovereignty stands. The Allied powers were within their rights to invade, remove the rights-violating Nazi state, and establish new means of security. Likewise in the Civil War, the southern states yielded any legitimate claim to sovereignty by engaging in institutional slavery, leaving the North with the moral right to invade.

There exists an undercurrent in libertarian circles which stands sympathetic to the South. It regards Lincoln as a tyrant and refers to the Civil War as “the War of Northern Aggression.” This misguided view places the cart of sovereignty before the horse of human rights. If we regard Lincoln as a tyrant for invading the South, we must likewise regard the Allies as tyrants for invading Germany. Sovereignty emerges from rights, not as an arena for their violation. There exists no “sovereign right” to violate another human being.

This is why we didn’t flinch from raiding Bilal Town in Pakistan, killing Osama bin Laden. The Pakistani claim to “sovereignty” held no legitimacy in a context where they harbored an enemy committed to violating the rights of American citizens. In this way, sovereignty between states is like fences between neighbors. You can only be a victim of trespass if you did not trespass first.

It’s with this view of both history and morality that I regard the Confederate battle flag as a complicated and tragic symbol. It represents our failings as a republic. We aspired to a grand vision of self-governance, and profoundly failed on multiple fronts. That said, the vision remains, and we continue to imperfectly pursue it. To the extent the Confederate flag inspires some toward a spirit of independence, it retains value. However, we should remember that such independence must be daily purchased with universal respect for the rights of others. The moment we trespass against a neighbor, we lose our sovereign claim. That’s the warning which the flag should herald today.

Well written and thought out.

_____________________________________________________

It is only well reasoned from a lopsided point of view. Recall that Slavery was as legal in the North as it was in the South. The US Constitution recognized slavery as legal. This fact takes the well reasoned idea that everyone keeps referring to off the table.

Slavery is immoral, sinful and just wrong but it was legal. We don’t invade states for following the law.

We invaded the South for a variety of reasons but the biggest reason of Mr. Lincoln was to preserve the Union.

Mr. Lincoln made it clear early on that the war was not about slavery and in fact he didn’t make it about slavery until he saw the Union as losing the war. After the proclamation the North got behind the war. One of my great, great grandfathers died from the war. Another great, great, grandfather heard Mr. Lincoln speak and thought that was one the highlights of his life. My great, grandmother told me about 60 years ago how her father’s face would light up as he spoke about Mr. Lincoln.

Personally, I believe the war should be called “The War of the Northern Aggression”. That being said I am glad the nation was held together but I believe there would have been much easier ways to do it. It would have been a relatively simple matter for the US to purchase the freedom of all slaves. That would have been much cheaper than the war and saved a million lives.

The war to me will always have been a mistake. We should have sued for peace and come back together and solved the problem.

The Republic as it was before the Civil War did not survive. We no longer have a republic where the Federal government derives its powers from the States but just the opposite, it is sickening when I think about it.

No, I’m afraid the article was not well thought out, not at all.

Ok,

I’ll re-phrase a little. To me it was refreshing that the author at least articulated his reasoning, in an age where any attempt at legitimate discussion is countered with accusations of ‘hate’.

I see your point - to accept on its face that the north only invaded due to slavery, is to accept a ‘switcharoo’, in which they gradually outlawed slavery...and woke up one morning and decided that it was so immoral, that its eradication justified war. I get your point...and you therefore don’t accept one of the author’s central assumptions. But at least we can get that far - because he did articulate his position.

I see the civil war as unnecessary (at least as it relates to slavery). In the centuries prior to the civil war, slavery was present in western nations. Now (for the most part) it isn’t. Why? I think the industrial revolution stopped slavery - its not that mankind is collectively more moral today, slavery just isn’t necessary. Its a cynical point of view, I know. I’m sure this sounds terrible, but isn’t meant to be - but for very similar reasons, farmers no longer spend their time and money maintaining horse and oxen, because a tractor is a whole lot les effort.

Anyway, I can’t imagine slavery having lasted in this country past the end of the 19th century. And in much of Europe, the colonial world, and South America, slavery died a peaceful death, with changes in law, etc....no war.

So, the civil war may be looked at as the abrupt end of the great American Experiment. The idea of sovereign states was over.

Mr. Lincoln made it clear early on that the war was not about slavery and in fact he didn’t make it about slavery until he saw the Union as losing the war.

Not true. The southern warriors were audacious and surprisingly effective beyond anyone's expectations - early on. but the war took it's toll and the south was all but bifurcated by the time Lincoln issued the EP (and was complete by July 9th).

It would have been a relatively simple matter for the US to purchase the freedom of all slaves.

The Lincoln administration floated that idea, but it didn't resonate with the rebels.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.