Libertarianism and the Civil War

Volokh Conspiracy ^ | 6 March 2012 | Ilya Somin

[donmeaker]

There are, generally speaking, three types of libertarian perspectives on the Civil War. Many libertarians actually support the war, some condemn it without defending the Confederacy, and some are actually pro-Confederate.

[donmeaker]

A nice breakdown.

[Wyoming Cowboy]

Chalk me down as being a fiercely pro-Confederate libertarian. The War Between the States was actually our second American Revolution, fought to protect the America of our Founding Fathers. But sadly, the bad guys won; and now we desperately need a third revolution to get out from under the era of federal tyranny ushered forth by that worst president of them all - Lincoln.

[DManA]

What libertarians bemoan about the Civil War is the loss of the right of a State to secede. That was a strong check on the power of the Federal Government.

[Sherman Logan]

Put me down as agreeing with the author.

Secession was an attempt to protect and extend the most egregious violation of liberty in American history. I find it bizarre that someone claiming to be libertarian could support it.

Unless of course black slaves aren’t “really” people with rights like other people, as was determined by the Dred Scott decision.

[Idabilly]

[cuban leaf]

I see it this way: Before the war we were called “these united states”. The union was like a big brick wall where the states were the bricks and the FedGov was the mortar holding them together.

Thanks to Lincoln, the country is now like a big wall made of mortar with 50 marbles embedded in it.

[cuban leaf]

I think the seeds of the destruction of this nation were sown before the nation became a nation. It is in our acceptance of slavery and even protecting it with the creation of the nation.

We will never recover. Slavery was fatal to us. It has just taken a long time for the infection to kill us, even though the original projectile was removed by the Civil War.

[Dead Corpse]

Good analogy.

As for slavery, it was already on it's way out at the time of the civil war. Advancements in machinery were already making slave holding too expensive a proposition.

[GilesB]

One can be in full agreement with the idea of a state’s right to secede and be in full opposition to the idea of slavery.

I am in full agreement with the idea that we, as free people, have the right to bear arms - mainly because I am in full opposition to what some people intend to do with the arms they are bearing.

[Sherman Logan]

While violently anti-slavery, I must admit that those who foresaw its abolition as creating huge problems for future generations have turned out to largely be correct.

Their diagnosis was correct, even though I differ greatly as to the appropriate treatment.

[Melas]

I’ve heard this claim a million times, yet despite the supposedly receding tide of slavery, the South was fighting tooth and nail to expand slavery into new territories.

[Sherman Logan]

Slavery being an increasingly losing financial proposition was, of course, why slave prices reached an all-time high in 1860. People are always interested in investing their money in known declining industries.

[GilesB]

Slavery may have been on its way out, as an economic proposition - but the fact is, it needed killing as a moral proposition.

It would not do to simply let it die an economic death, but retain in our national conscience the notion that it was morally acceptable.

[cuban leaf]

Here are some interesting perspective(s) (I include the “s” in parentheses because they are all from the same guy.)

From over a decade ago:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Blowup.shtml
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Stability.shtml
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Underclass.shtml
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Opportunity.shtml
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Assimilation.shtml

And last autumn:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/LondonRiots.shtml

The guy comes from a position of experience and knowledge.

[GeronL]

and there were probably some extreme libertarians who went (buck naked) west to avoid the war entirely and founded Berkeley

[Happy Rain]

Really, before Lincoln people were patriots of their states or commonwealths and our country was more a United Nations than a United States. The constitution was respected then.
It was “my country right or wrong” in the South and defending their homes from the evil invading hordes of blue barbarians was their patriotic duty.

The issue of black slavery was nothing to the Southern soldier except as an excuse used by foreign invaders to loot, rape and burn their way across his beloved country.

[GeronL]

Slavery existed throughtout history in every country of the world, long before there was a United States.

—
Something most school kids are never taught

[Sherman Logan]

Thanks for the links.

As others have pointed out, the attempts to make America into a biracial nation, with whites on one side and “people of color” on the other are failing.

We may indeed wind up biracial, but it’s more likely to be blacks vs. non-blacks.

I don’t want that to happen, but I’m afraid it’s where we’re headed.

[jmacusa]

If it was on the way out then what was Kansas all about?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

It is in our acceptance of slavery and even protecting it with the creation of the nation.

Indeed.

Locke's defense of slavery is the one gaping "WTF?" moment in the Second Treatise. Likewise, Founders really screwed over subsequent generations of Americans by failing to resolve this issue when the nation was founded. Granted, I understand the realpolitik of why this happened, but the end result was not good.

I call myself a libertarian, and I fully subscribe to the notion that states had (and have) a "right" to secede from the Union. But I also cannot square in my own mind the righteousness of states seceding from the Union in order to perpetuate the power of allowing humans to own other human beings.