----------------
There were also abolitionists who opposed the Union's actions in the Civil War because they believed that to force the Confederates to stay part of the Union against their will was, in itself, a form of slavery.
Lysander Spooner was a prominent 19th Century abolitionist and author. Spooner articulated the above theory in No Treason, No. 1 . Here's the opening to that fine treatise...
SPOONER: The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.
On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.
No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.
Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established. If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown.
Sophism. Sometimes degree is very important. As LS would no doubt agree if compelled to live a year as a chattel.
The problem with his basic argument is that it is saying that if person A believes his best use of his freedom is to totally take away person B's freedom by enslaving him, person C has no right to intervene.
It also ignores that in two of the seceding states, slaves were an absolute majority of the population, and in others close to a majority.
Our Constitution was formed by "We, the people of the United States" and created a Union between all Americans. The secessionists wanted to deprive Americans living in the South of their rights under the Constitution. The American people were required to utilize military force to protect the constitutional rights of Americans living in the southern states.
You have succinctly explained why BOTH sides lost the war.
Lysander Spooner was in error.
The people of the US voted for their government. If unwilling to accept the results of elections, the borders of the US were open to anyone who didn’t want that government.
The insurrection was not started to end a US government that they did not want. It started before Lincoln took office, so there was nothing Lincoln did that justified their insurrection.
Rather, it was started to pervert the US government, and force the elected US government (which by election, the people showed that they wanted it) to respond to the desires of a small minority of very wealthy slave owners.
That small minority enslaved the men of the state militias to protect slavery in peacetime, and enslaved them in support of their insurrection.
Coming to a theater near you.
Soon.
Very soon.
Excellent post
Lost on our special people here