Posted on 09/17/2007 2:35:27 PM PDT by Delacon
How Libertarians Ought To Think About The U.S. Civil War By Timothy Sandefur [ I. Introduction For decades, outspoken libertarians have seen the Civil War not only as a historical calamity, but as a political calamity as well. According to many libertarians, the Union victory in the Civil War, and the presidency of Abraham Lincoln in general, represented a betrayal of American Constitution and of the fundamental principles of American political philosophy. This interpretation rests on two major arguments as well as a variety of more minor concerns. The more minor concerns include specific critiques of the policies of the Lincoln Administration, or of the conduct of the War by Union forces. For example, many libertarians condemn the Union for instituting a military draft, or for suspending the writ of detailed discussion which cannot be provided here. criticisms are well-founded; indeed, libertarians deplore war precisely because it tends to give rise to such evils. Understanding the Civil War as a matter of political philosophy, however, requires a systematic, two-step analysis: first, does a state have the legal authority under the United States Constitution, to secede unilaterally? If the answer to this question is yes, then the analysis is at an end: if states have the right to secede, the Union was in the wrong to put down the Confederacy. If, however, the answer is no, then we must proceed to a second step: even illegal acts, like the American Revolution, are justified by the right 1 the Union did. J. McPherson, of revolution, so even if the Constitution does prohibit secession, the people of the southern states had the right to rebel against the Union, if their act was a legitimate act of revolution. It is essential to keep in mind the distinction between revolution whether the present movement at the South be called ‘secession’ or ‘rebellion.’ The movers, however, well understand the [*62] difference.” rebellion a legitimate act of The prevailing libertarian answers to these questions are, first, that states have the constitutional right to secede, and that Abraham Lincoln violated the Constitution by leading the nation into war against the seceding states. This argument is based on the “compact theory” of the Constitution. Second, the prevailing argument holds that the rebellion represented a legitimate act of revolution. This argument is based on the concept of “self-determination.” prevailing libertarian conclusions. In fact, states have no constitutional authority to secede from the union unilaterally; nor were southern states engaged in a legitimate act of revolution, because they initiated force, rather than acting in defense of individual rights. II. Do States Have The Legal Right to Secede? A. Three Interpretations of Union 2 1953) 4:432. 3 Libertarian Studies. There are at least three ways of looking at the nature of the federal union under the Constitution. First, the “compact theory” of the Constitution holds that it is much like a treaty between essentially independent states. This theory found its first major expression in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively, as a protest to the Alien and Sedition laws in 1798. 1830s, South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun based his theory of nullification on these resolutions—despite Madison’s repudiation of nullification—and thereby laid the intellectual foundation for secession thirty years later. each state is a sovereign entity which is bound to the other states only by a compact which it may break whenever the compact imposes unbearable burdens on the state—just as a country may decide to break a treaty. Under the compact theory, the federal union contains no inherent element of sovereignty—it is a league of sovereign states. In Calhoun’s view, [*63] the Constitution “is the government of States united in a political union, in contradistinction to a government of individuals socially united…the government of a community of States, and not the government of a single State or nation.” Opposed to the compact theory are two theories that we may call the “weak union” and the “strong union” views. According to these views, the federal Constitution is not a treaty, but a law, and the federal union contains at least 4 1994) p. 201. 5 University Press, 1989) pp. 132-62; L. Banning, Press, 1995) pp. 387-95. 6 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1953) p. 86. sovereignty of a single State or nation. The strong-union view, most famously espoused by Daniel Webster, and later adopted by Abraham Lincoln, Charles Sumner, and even Lysander Spooner, states predates the Constitution itself: it was created by the Declaration of Independence, and the sovereignty of the states was itself a consequence or product of sovereignty. This view has much to commend it; the Declaration of Independence, for instance, was issued in the name of the “thirteen people colonies are free and independent states.” It then goes on to describe what “free and independent states may of right do”—things like carrying on foreign policy—none of which were actually done by the states. In fact, at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, Delegate Rufus King explained that The states were not “sovereigns” in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty,—they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war.... If the states, therefore, retained some portion of their sovereignty [after declaring independence], they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it. 7 8 vols. (Washington: Elliott, 1836) 5:212-213. This argument formed a central point in Justice Sutherland’s interpretation of federal foreign policy power in 304 (1936). See J. Eastman and H. V. Jaffa, “Understanding Justice Sutherland As He Understood Himself,” [*64] James Wilson (a signer of the Declaration) agreed, saying that he “could not admit the doctrine that when the colonies became independent of Great Britain, they became independent also of each other. He read the Declaration of Independence, observing thereon, that the United Colonies were declared free and independent states, and inferring, that they were independent, not individually, but unitedly, and that they were confederated, as they were independent states.” 1787 did not purport to Madison called the Declaration of Independence “the fundamental act of union of these States,” claimed that “[t]he [1783] treaty of peace expressly agreed to acknowledge us as free, sovereign, and independent states...[b]ut this new Constitution at once swept those privileges away, being sovereign over all,” Charles Cotesworth Pinckney answered that “[t]he separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,—as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.” There are ambiguities, however, which undermine the strong union view. Section two of the Articles of Confederation, for example, did acknowledge the separate sovereignty of the American states: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” This 9 10 11 seems inconsistent with the view that the union was created by the Declaration. And the fact that the Continental Congress carried out foreign policy only shows that the federative national government. The nature of federal sovereignty at the time of the American founding was at least ambiguous more perfect eleven years later. The “weak-union” view was most famously espoused by James Madison. According to it, the Articles of Confederation did indeed acknowledge the separate sovereignty of the American states—and that was exactly the problem. Alexander Hamilton put it well in a sentence which is the theme of the entire and radical vice in the construction of the existing Confederation is in the principle of LEGISLATION for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE or COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES, and as contradistinguished from the INDIVIDUALS of which they consist.” kind of government—one of “divided sovereignty,” partly national and partly federal, in which all of the people of America would vest the national government with a limited and enumerated—of their sovereignty. The national sovereignty would therefore be the Constitution be ratified, not by state legislatures, but by special ratification conventions: to make clear that the states were not parties to the Constitution—thus it 12 which deals with foreign relations. P. Laslett, ed., Oxford University Press, rev ed. 1963) pp. 409-412. 13 225, 231-232 (1796). 14 Writings would “be then a government established by the thirteen States of America, not through the intervention of the Legislatures, but by the people at large...[a] distinction...[which] is very material.” did not depend on the creation of the federal authority; they were two wholly independent systems, in which the federal power was supreme within its limited sphere—and nonexistent outside of that sphere. One might analogize divided sovereignty to a homeowner who receives separate bills from the electric company and the gas company. An American citizen is separately a citizen of the state and of the federal union, and neither of these types of citizenship is superior to or inferior to the other. [*66] Under either the weak-union view or the strong-union view, states have no unilateral power to secede. Thus, in addressing whether the Confederacy had the constitutional authority to secede, it is unnecessary to resolve the question of whether the union was created by the Declaration of Independence or not, because ratification resolved the fundamental point: the federal union was an agreement between the not the respected by both the weak-union and strong-union views, means that the people of America are bound together as one people for certain purposes—and therefore a state may not B. What Divided Sovereignty Means 15 16 Amendment, which changed the nature of state and federal sovereignty. Because the sovereignty of a state is distinct from that of the union, a state can no more absolve its people of their allegiance to the federal government than the gas company can absolve a customer from paying her electric bill. The people, who adopted the Constitution, may decide to allow the people of a state to leave the union—through Congressional action (according to the weak-union view), or by adopting a Constitutional Amendment (according to the strong-union view). But unilateral secession is unconstitutional. “In the compound republic of America,” said Madison, “the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments....” [fallacy] of nullification,” he later explained, is the assumption that sovereignty is a unit, at once indivisible and unalienable; that the states therefore individually retain it entire as they originally held it, and, consequently, that no portion of it can belong to the U.S.... [W]here does the sovereignty which makes such a Constitution reside[?] It resides not in a single state but in the people of each of the several states, uniting with those of the others in the express & solemn compact which forms the Constitution. To the Constitution, therefore, the people of the several States must be a sovereign as they are a united people.... That a sovereignty should have even been denied to the States in their united character, may well excite wonder, when it is recollected that the Constitution which now unites them, was announced by the convention which formed it, as dividing sovereignty between the Union & the States; that it was presented under that view, by contemporary expositions recommending it to the ratifying [*66] authorities; that it has proved to have been so understood by the language which has been applied to it constantly…. Divided sovereignty (also called “dual sovereignty”), was the principal innovation of the Constitution. While the strong-union view saw ratification as simply an overhauling of the union, to the weak-union view, ratification reformed the sovereignty 17 18 University Press of New England, rev. ed. 1981) pp. 436-38. of the states as well as of the federal government. But according to both views, federal sovereignty is independent of the sovereignty of the states. Even Anti-Federalists acknowledged that ratifying the Constitution meant redefining American sovereignty. “Cincinnatus,” for instance, complained that “[s]uch is the anxiety manifested by the framers of the proposed constitution, for the utter extinction of the state sovereignties, that they were not content with taking from them every attribute of sovereignty, but would not leave them even the name.—Therefore, in the very commencement they prescribe this remarkable declaration— States the proposed…it will be adopted not by the people of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, &c., but by the people of the United States….” Constitution precisely on these grounds: he admitted that “if it is ratified, [it] will not be a compact entered into by the States, in their corporate capacities, but an agreement of the people of the United States as one great body politic.... It is to be observed, it is not a union of states or bodies corporate; had this been the case the existence of the state governments might have been secured. But it is a union of the people of the United States considered as one body, who are to ratify this constitution, if it is adopted.” Indeed, at the Virginia Ratification Convention, Patrick Henry challenged James Madison on this point: “Who authorized [the Constitutional Convention] to speak the language of We the people confederation.” 19 20 21 22 Confederation had been “derived from the dependent derivative authority of the legislatures of the states; whereas this [Constitution] is derived from the superior power of the people.” the States adopt it, it will be then a government established by the thirteen States of America, not through the intervention of the Legislatures, but by the people at large.” Opponents of the Constitution, therefore, were well aware that the Constitution would create, not a league of essentially independent sovereignties, but a new nation, retaining its own sovereignty for certain limited purposes. The Federalists explicitly defended this fact: for most purposes, they explained, the people of the states would find their state citizenship unchanged, but for a specified list of other purposes, the whole people of America would now agree, as a single political unit, to invest the union with sovereignty directly, and the state sovereignty travel, as it were, on parallel rails: state sovereignty connecting the sovereignty of the people of a state to their state capitol; federal sovereignty joining all the people through its national network, to arrive at Washington, D.C. James Wilson, signer of both the Constitution and the Declaration, told the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention that the sovereignty resides in the people, they have not parted with it; they have only dispensed such portions of power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare…. In order to recognize this leading principle, the proposed system sets out with a declaration, that its existence depends upon the supreme authority of the people alone…. When the principle is once settled, that the people are the source of authority, the consequence 23 24 is, that they may take from the subordinate governments with which they have hitherto trusted them, and place those powers in the general government, if it is thought that they will be productive of more good…. I have no idea, that a safe system of power, in the government, sufficient to manage the general interest of the United States, could be drawn from any other source, or rested in any other authority than that of the people at large, and I consider this authority as the rock on which this structure will stand. [*68] So while the states would, for the most part, retain their sovereignty, ratification meant that the whole People of the United States would now agree to vest their inchoate power to engage in, for example, foreign policy, exclusively in the federal government, which would be supreme for the limited, enumerated purposes of the federal union; otherwise, wrote Hamilton, the Constitution would “be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY.” Constitution was precisely to end the notion that the union was a league of sovereigns: one of the “infirmities” of the Articles of Confederation, he wrote, was that it never had a ratification by the PEOPLE. Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the several legislatures, it has been exposed to frequent and intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers, and has, in some instances, given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to the law of a State, it has been contended that the same authority might repeal the law by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be to maintain that a compact respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority. 25 26 27 One argument against the principle of divided sovereignty is that the Constitution was adopted by the members of distinct states, rather than by a national referendum. But Chief Justice John Marshall (who had been a delegate to the Virginia Ratification Convention) answered that in [The Constitution] was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in Convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States—and where else should they have [*69] assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments. This was not only the opinion of High Federalists like Marshall. As Madison explained (long after his break with the Federalists), the Constitution was formed by the people in each of the States, acting in their highest sovereign capacity.... Being thus derived from the same source as the Constitutions of the States, it...is as much a Constitution, in the strict sense of the term, within its prescribed sphere, as the Constitutions of the States are within their respective spheres; but with this obvious & essential difference, that being a compact among the States in their highest sovereign capacity, and constituting the people thereof one people for certain purposes, it cannot be altered or annulled at the will of the States individually, as the Constitution of a State may be at its individual will. 28 powers of the general Government…do for the most part (if not wholly) affect individuals, and not States: They require no aid from any State authority. This is the great leading distinction between the old articles of confederation, and the present constitution”); id. at 470 (Jay, C.J.) (“the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution”); (1798); J.); 78 (1799) (“the general government derives its existence and power from the people, and not from the states, yet each state government derives its powers from the people of that particular state. Their forms of government are different, being derived from different sources; and their laws are different.”) 29 These sources reveal how well understood was the central fact that the Constitution was a government of their corporate capacities, as the compact theory would have it. Contrary to Calhoun’s later claim that “the States, when they formed and ratified the Constitution, were distinct, independent, and [*70] sovereign communities,” federal sovereignty proceeds directly from the people; is ‘ordained and established’ in the name of the people.... It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties.... The government of the Union, then…is, emphatically, and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.... [T]he government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. As Justice Anthony Kennedy recently put it, “The Framers split the atom of sovereignty. It was the genius of their idea that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other…with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.... [T]he National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it.” The federal government is United States. Secession is not, therefore, like a person who chooses to cancel his membership in a club—because the states are not in the “club” to begin with. Only “We the People” are members of the federal club, and only the “people” which created it can 30 31 32 change it, by altering the contours of that “people” through amendment, or a new Constitutional Convention. So, while the whole people may allow a state out of the union, or may even dissolve the Constitution entirely, a state cannot claim on its own the authority to withdraw from the union. Lincoln put it with dry understatement when he noted that advocates of secession were “not partial to that power which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself ‘We, the People.’” These sources reveal that in 1787, both the federalists and anti-federalists recognized that the United States Constitution was just that—a constitution [*71] for a nation, not a league of sovereign states. And, if these sources are not enough, as Akhil Reed Amar points out, “no major proponent of the Constitution sought to win over states’ rightists by conceding that states could unilaterally nullify or secede in the event of perceived national abuses. The Federalists’ silence is especially impressive because such a concession might have dramatically improved the document’s ratification prospects in several states.” wrote Madison in 1831, “it is explained…by the entire absence of apprehension that it could be necessary.” Some of those who defend the constitutionality of secession claim that it was foreseen, and that several states ratified the constitution did so with explicit reservations of the right to secede. which passed such a “reservation” while ratifying, and which later seceded, was Virginia. That state’s “reservation” read: “The powers granted under the Constitution being 33 34 35 36 War derived from shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” right to unilateral secession, nor to any unconditional right to revolt for any reason the state sees fit. Instead, the “reservation” is simply a restatement of the right to revolution, which we will consider below. Moreover, it is made in the name, not of the people of Virginia, but of “the People of the United States,” and it makes the unremarkable assertion that It is also frequently argued that another set of Resolutions, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, reveal the true nature of the Constitution as a league of sovereign states, and that Madison’s later repudiation of the compact theory was an instance of intellectual dishonesty. The facts, as usual, are more complicated. Jefferson, whose Kentucky Resolutions unequivocally endorsed the compact theory, sent a draft to Madison for his review. Madison was somewhat startled by Jefferson’s argument, and he replied, “Have you ever considered thoroughly the distinction between the power of the State supposition that the former is clearly the ultimate Judge of infractions, it does [*72] not follow that the latter is the legitimate organ especially as a convention was the organ by which the Compact was made.” guarded, and, he insisted, never endorsed the compact theory of the Constitution. Decades later, writing furiously to oppose Calhoun’s doctrine of nullification, Madison explained, just as he had at the Philadelphia and Richmond conventions, that the 37 38 Constitution was binding on the people, not on the states, and the states had no right to nullify the laws: [T]he characteristic peculiarities of the Constitution are 1. The mode of its formation, 2. The division of the supreme powers of Govt between the States in their united capacity and the States in their individual capacities. 1. It was formed, not by the Governments of the component States, as the Federal Govt. for which it was substituted [i.e., the Articles of Confederation] was formed; nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the U.S. as a single community in the manner of a consolidated Government. It was formed by the States—that is by the people in each of the States, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed, consequently, by the same authority which formed the State Constitutions. Being thus derived from the same source as the Constitutions of the States, it has within each State, the same authority as the Constitution of the State, and is as much a Constitution, in the strict sense of the term, within its prescribed sphere, as the Constitutions of the States are within their respective spheres, but with this obvious & essential difference, that being a compact among the States in their highest sovereign capacity, and constituting the people thereof one people for certain purposes, it cannot be altered or annulled at the will of the States individually, as the Constitution of a State may be at its individual will. In any case, what Jefferson and Madison wrote in 1798, in a series of resolutions adopted by two state legislatures, cannot change the nature of the federal Constitution as adopted in 1787: it is a binding government of the whole people of the United States. No state may unilaterally leave the union. C. Other Constitutional Provisions Barring Unilateral Secession We have seen that the nature of federal sovereignty under the Constitution makes unilateral secession illegal. Since the Constitution is a [*73] law binding the People, and 39 not a league of states, states have no authority to intervene between the people and the national government. If the people of a state wish to leave the union, they may not do so unilaterally, but must obtain the agreement of their fellow citizens—or they must rebel in a legitimate act of revolution. Several other clauses of the Constitution are consistent with this view, and would be inconsistent with any interpretation allowing a state to leave the union unilaterally. The Constitution guarantees to every state a republican form of government (Art. IV § 4), prohibits states from entering into any compact with other states without Congressional permission (Art. I § 10), guarantees the privileges and immunities of citizens when they travel interstate (Art. IV §2), prohibits states from entering into any “Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation,” even right to two senators (Art. V), is the supreme law of the land (Art. VI § 2), and requires state officeholders to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States (Art. VI § 3). These clauses are inconsistent with the theory that secession is a constitutional prerogative of state government. Consider, for example, the republican guarantee clause: if a state could unilaterally secede, then any group of criminals might declare themselves the “rightful” government of a state, issue a proclamation of secession—and then leave the federal government unable to enforce the guarantee. Likewise, if states could leave the union at any time, it would make little sense to require state officials to take an oath to support the United States Constitution, since their allegiance to the federal union would depend wholly on whether their state decided to remain in the union or not. One common argument is that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states the power to secede from the union. But this claim begs the question, in two ways. The Amendment says that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution to the people.” be reserved to the states. And, second, the Amendment refers explicitly to “the people.” To what “people” does this refer? Not to the people of each state separately, but to a single compact theory, this clause would be surplusage, since no mere league of sovereigns has the authority to reserve nondelegated powers directly to the people of separate sovereignties, any more than the United Nations can “reserve” any rights to the people of the United States. III. Was The South Engaged In Revolution? The fact that states have no Constitutional right to unilaterally secede does not end the inquiry, because people retain the right of revolution regardless. If the Confederacy represented a legitimate act of revolution, then the Union was still in the wrong to put down the rebellion. Madison never denied that all people retain the right to revolution. Nor did Abraham Lincoln. Even in his First Inaugural Address, Lincoln 40 41 political bands with England. Also, according to one adherent of the strong-union view, one of the more sophisticated manifestations of the pre-constitutional origin of the union is found in the fact that the Constitution itself limits the degree to which the Constitution can be amended. No amendment, for instance, was permitted to change the date of the Importation Clause, and no amendment can deprive a state of its two senators. If the states had since there could be no higher sovereignty which could institute, let alone enforce, such a restriction on the power to amend. “A sovereign is by definition a source and not a subject of law,” so a compact between sovereigns can never be made unamendable. But, according to either the strong- or weak-union views, since the whole people of the union created the Constitution only to make that union more perfect, they could place limits on the degree to which the Constitution itself could be altered. H.V. Jaffa, acknowledged that “[i]f, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution—certainly would, if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case.” United States, and thus is alterable by the whole people only, any individual or group retains an inalienable right to fight against tyranny. Many libertarians defend the Confederate states’ secession on the grounds that it was engaged in a revolution consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Writing in 1920, H.L. Mencken claimed that “The Union soldiers…actually fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.” Hummel has written that “as a revolutionary right, the legitimacy of secession is universal and unconditional. That at least is how the Declaration of Independence reads.” The problem with this argument is that this is Independence reads. In fact, the libertarian principles of [*75] revolution enunciated in the Declaration do not justify the Confederacy’s acts at all. According to libertarianism, as espoused by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and others, the individual’s right to own himself puts him on a par with all other individuals in a state of nature. Before government exists, each person has the equal right to run his own life as every other person, and this includes the right to self-defense. Since selfdefense is difficult in the state of nature, however, people agree to join a social compact 42 43 44 by delegating part of that right to the government, which is entrusted with the power to protect their lives, liberties, and estates. But government has no authority to violate their rights, because no individual in the state of nature has the right to violate another person’s rights, and therefore cannot confer such a right to the government. “[T]he Legislat[ur]e,” wrote Locke, “is not, nor can possibly be, absolutely Fortunes of the People. For it being but the joynt power of every Member of the Society given up to that Person or Assembly which is Legislator, it can be no more than those persons had in a State of Nature before they enter’d into Society…. For no Body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no Body has an absolute Arbitrary Power...[to] take away the Life or Property of another.” appointed to govern “ to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power…and…endeavour to grasp themselves, or Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty….” of the right to self-defense. The right to self-ownership allows individuals to agree to a social compact, and the right of self-defense gives that compact its legitimacy. Any society which contradicts these fundamental premises—such as a society based on inequality and slavery—is therefore not a legitimate government; it is instead a criminal gang, and it cannot justify its robbery or enslavement by claiming that the people voted for these things, because the 45 46 people no right to enslave others in the first place. legitimacy and may rightly be overthrown. As Lincoln summarized it, “no man is good enough to govern another man, leading principle—the sheet anchor of American republicanism.” The Declaration of Independence enunciates these principles in what is almost a syllogism: “all men are created equal... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... rights, consent of the governed... these ends and duty, however, may only be exercised after “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism.” The Declaration of Independence, therefore, far from recognizing any “unconditional” right of people to overthrow their government, places several important limits on rebellion: it is justified only by a collective act of self-defense, and even then, only after “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” And a rebellion which institutes a new government based not on securing individual rights, but on violating them (such as a revolution that consists of stealing people’s property), is not a legitimate revolution at all in the eyes of the Declaration’s libertarian theory; it would be merely a massive criminal act or coup. 47 48 These arguments are all essentially rewordings of libertarianism’s famous maxim against the initiation of force. Libertarian theory holds that political institutions are justified only insofar as they protect the freedom of the individuals who make up that society. A political society’s “right to self-determination,” therefore, is not a fundamental the self-determination of individuals who make up that society. The non-initiation of force principle means that the distinction between a revolutionary act and a crime is that the former is a kind of self-defense, undertaken to protect individual rights, while the latter is an initiation of force, to violate the rights of others, or protect the proceeds of some robbery. In the former case, libertarianism holds that it is legitimate to commit acts of physical force in retaliation against those who have initiated its use; the American Revolution, for instance, while illegal, was a legitimate act of revolution because Parliament had declared its right to “bind [the American colonies] in all cases whatsoever,” and had engaged in “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” Americans had the right to defend themselves by throwing off such government, even if doing so cost many lives. [*77] Analyzing the alleged “revolution” of 1861 also requires understanding the purposes behind the act: the supreme law of the land? Although several writers have tried to claim that the Civil War was not fought over slavery, but over issues of domestic economic policy, 49 claims are highly exaggerated. stated unequivocally: In the momentous step which our State has taken…it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun…. [A] blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization…. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. Domestic economic policy (other than that relating to slavery) is nowhere mentioned in this document, or in South Carolina’s declaration of secession, which focused only on “The right of property in slaves,” and complained that other sates “have denied the rights of property established…have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery…[and] have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes.” Georgia’s declaration reiterated its “numerous and serious causes of complaint against [the] non-slave-holding…States with reference to the subject of African slavery,” and although it complained of the fact that Northern economic interests had received federal protection (“they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury”), it did so only to protest that federal protection of slavery was inadequate. Texas’ declaration of secession complained that “In all the non-slave-holding States…the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party…based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these [*78] Southern 50 http://volokh.com/2002_04_28_volokh_archive.html#76098962 States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color—a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.” These documents could hardly be clearer. The Confederate states, whatever their other reasons for seceding, were primarily moved by the desire to preserve their slave property from interference by the federal government. Or, more accurately, in reaction against the election of a President who had pledged himself to halt the spread of slavery into the western territories. terms of “freedom,” it was the “freedom to enslave” that they were defending. Indeed, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, section IX clause 4, unambiguously declared that “No...law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” This clause demonstrates just how off the mark Mencken’s criticism of Lincoln really was. It was not true that “the Confederates…fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.” Confederates fought for the (literally absolute) right of people Unlike present-day defenders of the South, the leaders of the Southern cause realized that their cause could find no support in the Declaration of Independence. Thus 51 52 except possibly through condemnation in exchange for just compensation. But it did permit the Congress to bar slavery from the western territories, which would become states eventually. If admitted as free states, this would mean that southerners would eventually find themselves outvoted in Congress, which could lead to the ultimate extinction of slavery. It was Lincoln’s insistence on forbidding slavery in the west—as enunciated in his Cooper Union speech, for example—that served as the proximate cause of the war. McPherson (1988) pp. 51-72. 53 they rarely based their arguments on the Declaration, and in fact explicitly denounced it. “There is not a word of truth in it,” said John C. Calhoun. created equal, he said was “inserted into our Declaration of Independence without any necessity. It made no necessary part of our justification for separating from the parent country, and declaring ourselves independent.” Others went [*79] farther. Senator Pettit of Indiana declared it a “self-evident lie.” who had once said “Slavery is…the greatest of all the great blessings which a kind Providence has ever bestowed upon our glorious region” but nowhere accredited dogma of Mr. Jefferson that all men are created equal.” Contrary, then, to the oft-repeated claim that the Civil War was not about slavery, the question of slavery answers the essential question which determines whether secession in 1860 was an act of revolution on one hand, or a criminal conspiracy, in the other. The secession of 1861 was not a legitimate revolution because its “cornerstone” rested on the “the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery— subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.” had said before the war, We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny. The shepherd 54 55 56 57 C. Oliver, “Southern Nationalism” 58 html drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty. The Confederacy, built upon the wolf’s definition of liberty, was an illegitimate government by the libertarian standards of the Declaration of Independence. When the Confederacy initiated force by firing on Fort [*80] Sumter, therefore, it became the responsibility of the President to “take Care that the Laws [including the supreme law of the land] be faithfully executed,” IV. Why Libertarians Defend The South Among the reasons that so many libertarians argue that the Confederacy was in the right in the Civil War is their perception that Union victory ushered in an era of federal expansion and control over the economy. It is certainly true that in the late nineteenth century, the federal government intervened more and more in national economic policy. But blaming this on Union victory is problematic at best. For one thing, the argument partakes of the manipulation of the economy increased in the years following the war, this had many causes, especially the rise of the Populist, and later Progressive, political movements. These can be only distantly connected to the Union cause. Moreover, while there was much to deplore in the culture of Yankee political economy, there was at least as much to deplore about the culture of the antebellum south. 59 60 More specifically, some libertarians argue that the Union victory caused an expansion of federal authority by destroying the political will of states to resist the expansionism of the federal government. less willing to say no when the federal government proposed to step on state prerogatives. Although there is some truth to this argument, there are two mitigating thoughts that must be kept in mind. First, it did not entirely destroy the will of states to resist federal encroachment: as the Civil Rights era of the 1950s and 1960s revealed, southern states were still quite willing to resist what they perceived as federal encroachment, through the policy of “massive resistance” to integregation. But, secondly, that experience shows that state resistance to federal authority is just as likely to be inimical to individual liberty as it is to redound to the benefit of individual liberty. State resistance, after all, is usually predicated not on protecting individuals from oppression, but on protecting the official dignity of state governments. For libertarians to venerate state government is therefore a risky enterprise. As Madison explained in the governments is only valid so long as the states protect the freedom of Americans: “is it not preposterous,” he asked, to urge as an objection to [the Constitution]…that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments [*81] of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States…might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New…? [T]he public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and…no form of government whatever has 61 any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. [A]s far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. While state resistance to federal expansion may be helpful for protecting individual liberty, it has also often been inimical, and this was never more true than in the case of the Civil War. Finally, I suspect one reason libertarians are misled into embracing the Confederate cause is because of the formative event in the lives of many libertarians, as well as the Libertarian Political Party: The Vietnam War. The lessons that many Vietnam protestors drew from that experience were that war is is simply “none of our business” what another country’s rulers do to the people of that country. If the Vietnamese “choose” to live under communism, other nations must not interfere. Likewise, this argument goes, if southerners in the 1860s chose to enslave blacks, that may have been wrong, but it was none of the Union’s business. Seeing the Confederacy through the lens of the Vietnam experience, however, is misleading. First, it ignores the fact that, unlike in foreign policy, where a nation may choose whether or not to intervene in a conflict, the Constitution requires the president to faithfully execute the law, including the Constitution itself. Second, such a view obscures the ultimate values of libertarian political philosophy. Although it is true that Americans do not owe a duty nations have the its people is “none of our business” is similar to what Lincoln described as the perverse 62 notion “that ‘if one man would [*82] enslave another, no third man should object.’” The United States, and every other nation, does have the right, though liberate oppressed peoples held captive by dictatorships. The federal government had the right, War is a terrible thing. But libertarianism holds that it is justified at times, when undertaken in defense of individual liberty. As Jefferson said, “all men know that war is a losing game to both parties. But they know also that if they do not resist encroachment at some point, all will be taken from them.... It is the melancholy law of human societies to be compelled sometimes to choose a great evil in order to ward off a greater….” Civil War was an awful conflict, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. But the right side did prevail in that war, and libertarians should stop doing themselves the great disservice of defending a cruel and oppressive slave society. References Ames, H., ed. 1911. Pennsylvania). Anastaplo, G. 2000. “John Quincy Adams Revisited.” Review Fehrenbacher, D. 1989. (Atlanta: University of Georgia Press). Lence, R., ed. 1992. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund). 63 64
I beg to differ. It plays almost as much as one's race does on this particular subject.
I don't understand why the enslavement of Africans in North America seems to trump all other slavery and for that matter all unsavory things relative to their time in history in the eyes of many young folks today except to say the revisionists kicked my generations ass in the brainwashing department.
I would like to see the high and mighty on black race issues attack thug culture or abortion or inner city crime or black hatred of whites with the same vigor they do the Confederate Battle Flag or Dixie.
Perfectly valid points.
The South gets a bad name over slavery for two major reasons.
1. It was the only part of the world to fight a major war to try to preserve a dying institution.
2. It was the last part of the (western) world that attempted to justify and defend an institution that the rest of the civilized world had rejected decades before.
A contributing reason is the fact that the South refused to accept the verdict of the war they lost and reimposed a social system for over half a century that wasn’t greatly different from slavery in practice.
BTW, I recently read a book called “What This Cruel War Was Over,” which tracks the changing attitudes towards slavery over the course of the war among white unionists, black unionists, and white southerners by compiling data from their letters home and diaries. Very interesting book.
I should have said machined tools and products produced by machinery like cheap cloth and farm implements. But then you already knew that. You site stats. Can you tell me what percentage of state gdp came from agricultural output in the north as compared to that of the south? I don’t know. Its important to this discussion.
You write too well not to know that a number of nations in the West ended slavery several decades after the Civil War here ....one of which Brasil had exponentially more slaves than we had here.
And that said war probably contributed to that accelerated demise of slavery in the West.
I agree though that after Britain ended slavery that the handwriting was on the wall and that cooler heads should have found a way to phase it out here but between sanctimonious Yankees and hotheaded Southerners and all the cultural bad blood between them anyhow besides slavery that it did not happen but I wish it had.
It should be noted though that all those folks on both sides were racists by today’s lofty benchmarks including even the radicals.
Likewise, the South did not reimpose slavery..hardly though they did organize to re enfranchise whites and send the occupation forces home and limit black enfranchisement. They were afraid of too much black political power. It's a sticky situation. Just give up and let blacks rule the South? that is exactly what would have happened and how would that have turned out? Would that have been what northern whites wanted or just what northern radicals might have liked to have had to exploit to their own ends? Blacks run nearly every Southern city of note today. Come down and see for yourself and let me know what you think. These issues are so damned hard. Folks spout what they believe to be the correct answer...the backslapping, "yep I love black folks here in rural Wisconsin" answer but yet they ignore harsh realities, human nature and glaring empirical observations staring them down in the real world.
I don't have the answers but I'm living the problems....
I blame the cotton gin too....invented by a Yankee..lol
sorry though I just don't pass every notion thatb pops into my head as to how it relates to minorities and identity politics
the truth is what it is
Why so much energy to demonize the South and 150 year old slavery and yet ignore other slavery and the sharp decline of black culture the past 40 years accompained by a rise in racist black attitudes to whites?
I do not know one white supremacist personally, not one. yet I see rampant and institutional racist attitudes by blacks towards whites and that is tolerated by too many folks same as blacks calling one another ni&&er.
Yet instead, let's drone on and on about how bad slavery was and Southerners are wicked etc....and for God's sake let's not judge those wicked old southerners by the times they lived in
Never mind the 1000 pound gorilla in the room. The South bashing barrage on this forum from about 30-40 loud freepers has always seemed an ill fit here.
It meant something different to Jefferson and the framers. Locke heavily influenced the framers, especially Jefferson and Locke's Two Treatises of Government. From volume II, Locke writes, 'To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.'
Continuing, 'A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another: there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the Lord and Master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another and confer on him by an evident and clear appointment an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.'
Nice job. Though from what I know about the Civil War. Wasn’t it the Democaratic Party southerners that wanted to keep the slaves. Hence the Dred Scott decision.
Furthermore, wasn’t it the Northern Democrats who with their carpet bags went to the South to suck an already improverished people a little more.
Actually, I believe the carpetbaggers were Republicans. Ergo, after reconstruction, it was over a century before a Republican could be elected dogcatcher in the South
Good post. What would have happened to America if we had had universal suffrage from day one? What would America look like if participants at the Constitutional Convention had been “balanced” in terms of race and gender?
These are hard questions, as you correctly noted. They’re also questions we aren’t permitted to discuss.
True, the DoI did not establish a government.
And if a human has the moral right to fight for freedom, don't other humans have the moral right to help them do so?
According to the Bible, those in slavery are to treat their masters with respect - not murder. But just how many murders are justified?
So all men are created equal, except for those who were created by God to be slaves to the others.
Conveniently, the slavers decided God had, by a “manifest declaration of his will, set one (the white man) above another (the black man),” with the blacks meant to eternally serve the whites. IOW, black slavery is God’s Will and therefore a good thing.
However, it is ahistorical to blame this interpretation of Locke on Jefferson and the Founders. They were all perfectly clear that slavery was a contradiction of the principles of the Declaration, and a Very Bad Thing. They just didn’t know how to get rid of it without disastrous consequences, so they played for time in hopes the situation would resolve itself. Their hope was that slavery would gradually become less profitable and critical to the South’s economy, as it had in the North.
Unfortunately, the cotton gin was invented and slavery became more profitable, not less. Over the first decades of the 1800s southerners gradually developed the notion that slavery was a Good Thing, not unreasonably trying to find a justification for something they were so dependent on economically.
Noy exactly true. Many more slaves were imported to Brazil than to America, something like 40% of all the slaves taken from Africa.
But Brazilians had a less "race" focus on slavery. In particular the children born of a white father and black mother were almost always freed, and usually their mother too. Over time, especially after new blood from Africa was stopped, slaves dropped as a percentage of the total population.
Best I can figure is that at emancipation in 1888 slaves were 15% of a total population of 15M, or about 2.2M. This compares with about 4M in the US in 1860.
all those folks on both sides were racists by today’s lofty benchmarks including even the radicals.
Again, mostly but not entirely accurate. There were northern abolitionists who considered blacks to be absolutely equal, and showed it by their actions.
I cannot disagree with most of your points. We are still trying to deal with the consequences of the abolition of race-based slavery, 150 years later. It should not surprise us if those faced with the actual situation found it even more difficult to handle.
Also according to the Bible, and to Christ specifically, Christians are to respect the government and not rebel against it. Yet Americans chose to rebel against the British King, their legitimate sovereign, on the grounds that he was infringing on their liberties. Presumably you believe they were right to do so.
Yet you think black men and women, sufferers from infinitely greater deprivation of rights than King George ever considered, had no moral right to rebel?
But just how many murders are justified?
This is a question of how the rebellion should be fought, or indeed of whether the cost of rebellion is more than it is worth, not of whether rebellion is morally justified. OTOH, if the masters do not resist, which they not have a moral right to do, presumably there would be few deaths.
It is interesting how attitudes have changed over the centuries. To a modern person, Spartacus is a hero, as the movies made about him have shown. To people of antiquity, he was a great villain and monster.
You're grasping a bit, aren't you? Or do you really expect us to believe that the technological superiority of cheap cloth, plows, and rakes produced in Britain was so much higher than their U.S. counterparts? And if that was so, then wouldn't the Northern farmers be at just as big a disadvantage? So the tariff would have hit them just as hard as the Southern consumer.
Can you tell me what percentage of state gdp came from agricultural output in the north as compared to that of the south?
I don't think that's relevant. You said there were more farmers down South. If Mississippi had 90% of its GDP produced by 10,000 farmers, and Pennsylvania had 50% of its GDP produced by 20,000 farmers then there are still more farmers in Pennsylvania than in Mississippi. And if your scenario is correct then there are more people impacted up North than down South. The fact is that tariffs impacted both regions equally. A consumer in Connecticut paid just as much for a good made by a domestic manufacturer protected by tariffs as a consumer in Texas did. The South did not account for the majority of tariff revenue. In fact, if Alexander Stephens' figures are true, they accounted for less than a quarter.
Romans 13? Citation please. I have no king but Jesus. I might be charged with rendering unto Caesar, but there's no prohibition against changing government, or of resisting unlawful commands. Suppose the government enacts a law that all girls/women are to serve two years as prostitutes, would you continue to support that government? Should Daniel have obeyed the law and refused to pray to God? Peter was commanded not to preach, but continued to do so. Was that unjustified? The apostles replied '[w]e ought to obey God rather than men.'
Yet Americans chose to rebel against the British King, their legitimate sovereign, on the grounds that he was infringing on their liberties.
Read the DoI again, personal liberties was not the issue. The tyranny of government. The DoI states, '[t]he history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.'
Yet you think black men and women, sufferers from infinitely greater deprivation of rights than King George ever considered, had no moral right to rebel?
They have every right of a white man. Whites were also held as slaves in America, albeit not as many, as were Native Americans. In the annals of history millions more whites have been deprived of rights. Additionally, many slaves (documented by their own words in the Slave Narratives) were treated well, had their own gardens, earned monies, hunted, celebrated holidays, fought for the Confederacy, refused to take the oath of allegiance to the union after capture etc.
But the slaves were deprived of rights first by native African tribes, then by The British and yankee slavers, then sold southward. New York had a huge number of slaves, as did Rhode Island. Have you ever wondered why that states official name is 'Rhode Island and Providence Plantations'?
This is a question of how the rebellion should be fought, or indeed of whether the cost of rebellion is more than it is worth, not of whether rebellion is morally justified.
And what would be acceptable? Let's say that some Wahabi malcontents (aka terrorists) travel to Dearborn Michigan, steal weapons from the armory, and proceed to arm the Muslims, and instigate mass murder/forced conversions, is that defensible?
OTOH, if the masters do not resist, which they not have a moral right to do, presumably there would be few deaths.
Continuing the above, then it would be your policy to submit and convert to Islam?
God placed his own children into slavery.
They were all perfectly clear that slavery was a contradiction of the principles of the Declaration, and a Very Bad Thing.
Agreed.
They just didn’t know how to get rid of it without disastrous consequences, so they played for time in hopes the situation would resolve itself.
Jefferson had submitted a bill to the Virginia Burgess to emancipate all slaves, which was defeated. The King continually negatived colonial laws, which explains why the framers explicitly rejected all attempts to grant the federal government that power. In 1769 Jefferson submitted a bill allowing manumission, a version eventually passed in 1782 which he signed as Governor. He also argued for the freedom of a slave in Howell v Netherland, stating 'under that law [the law of Nature/God's law] we are all born free'.
Their hope was that slavery would gradually become less profitable and critical to the South’s economy, as it had in the North.
I'll give you credit where credit is due, you understand that slavery existed due to economic issues, not that every American simply desired to own a slave.
Over the first decades of the 1800s southerners gradually developed the notion that slavery was a Good Thing, not unreasonably trying to find a justification for something they were so dependent on economically.
There were more abolition societies in the South. The notion that slavery was good was based on the prevailing sentiments of blacks - in their native lands - were barbarians, cannibals, practiced witchcraft etc, so their introduction to Christianity and European culture was seen as benevolent in comparison.
5% of the African slave trade came to the US...north and south at the time.
37% went to Brasil.....that is 7.5 times as many as here which is exponential in my opinion.
they were freed in 1888 and yes you are correct that mulattoes born particularly in northern Brasil were more likely than not freed particularly later in the slave trade but it should be noted slaves were treated much much harsher there than here....for many reasons...religious and economic
a not insignificant number of mulattoes were freed here too which is where many of our freedmen came from...many of whom owned slaves themselves
As for the Brasil numbers, the fact that there were more blacks in the US in 1888 proportionately than in Brasil even given Brasil’s much higher importation rate proves slaves had a much better survivability here.
Haiti somewhat recognized mulattoes a bit too....even today the friction tween them and purer Africans there is pretty hot. The blacks have tried to massacre the mulattoes same as they did the last whites but have never succeeded so far.
That friction is why Baby Doc lost power in 85.
I am only aware of a handful of northern abolitionists who advanced complete racial equality to include for example interracial coupling. Many even toyed with sending them back hence Liberia...an old idea going back to slave owner William Dunbar of Natchez who emancipated his slaves (he was the largest in the south at the time) and tried to send them back to west Africa too....some made it but local slaveowners burned his ships.
The plight of sub Saharan black culture worldwide is more than just due to the slave trade, serfdom (both which they still practice) or even colonialism.
It’s cultural based and mostly due to bad luck in staying put for so much of history’s timeline in geographic isolation while Europe, Far Asia and Near Asia and North Africa alternately took off. You can see similar cultural awkwardness throughout the Americas with the indigenous or with tribals in rural Australasia.
That does not mean the individual cannot transcend that....many do. But to blame the problems just of Caucasoid oppression is wrong and often self serving...just as self serving as racial supremacy of any sort.
amen to all that and we are all the bias of our perspective...me as much as anyone
i just look for reality
You guys are having a really good discussion!
Slavery was an institution which existed pretty much everywhere in one form or another for centuries. It’s looked upon today as horrible and perhaps the greatest evil in history. That’s fair enough, I suppose, but people need to remember that modern ideas of freedom simply didn’t exist until the economic conditions arose which allowed them. People didn’t pontificate about libertarian ideals circa 267 BC or 834 AD.
Life was very hard until relatively recently in human history. Unless you were extremely wealthy, your daily life was something we would consider unthinkable today. You worked from dawn to dusk at backbreaking labor. You didn’t have the luxury of worrying about what to do with your free time, much less entertain higher questions such as, “Is it right for a man to own another man?” Many people would have been better off owned as a slave by a benevolent rich man than tending to a small plot of land that could be wiped out at any time by a flood, a drought, insects, or other natural occurrences. Slavery was really nothing more than a social services and public works type system where the rich or the taxpayers provided for the poor in return for their forced labor. Some owners and overseers were kind, others brutal, but the system itself was never really questioned. After all, life itself could be either kind or brutal, particularly brutal in those days. That’s why the Bible never outright condemns slavery. It doesn’t mandate it, either. We’re thus free to abolish it as a system.
As capitalism, mercantile economies, and concepts of political liberty grew, slavery was increasingly seen as bad and was phased out or banned in the Western nations. The establishment of colonies, however, brought it back for a time, largely because these new territories were vast, primitive in the beginning, and seen as needing forced labor to get started. This was unfortunate, of course, but it happened. Once something like that happens, you have to look at it in the context of its time, as well as in its overall effects.
The reason slavery became a racially based practice in America (yes, there were whites who traded their freedom for passage to the New World, etc., but ultimately it became racial) was because Africa was teeming with slavery. It had never once crossed the mind of black Africans that slavery was wrong, and they’d likely still be practicing slavery there today if the colonial powers hadn’t eventually put an end to it. So when slavery made its unfortunate revival in America, Africa was a logical source for slave purchases.
Was it a “bad thing”? Yes, but it’s also true that many a slave was well-treated, probably most. And it’s undeniably true that black Americans today are better off because slavery occurred. Should it have been banned? Absolutely, because a society that relishes liberty should not permit someone to be physically owned and enslaved by someone else. It simply doesn’t fit in a society where liberty is cherished, and the South held onto their archaic institution way beyond any point in which it could be justified by arguing that it fit into the social structures of the era.
Should we wallow in guilt over it today? Should we flay ourselves or flay southerners over it? Absolutely not. Someone mentioned the Holocaust earlier. I have a Jewish friend who literally can’t watch movies that deal with the Holocaust. Even though those films (such as Schindler’s List) are designed to remind us of a great evil so that we hopefully never repeat it, she can’t bear to see what happened to her people, and never brings it up unless the topic is somehow invoked by others. It’s interesting that blacks have been conditioned by liberalism to dwell incessantly on the bad things that happened to their ancestors. A few years ago, it was reported that the National Park Service wanted to highlight slavery more in order to attract blacks to Civil War sites. Someone recently e-mailed me an article about blacks and opera. It was argued that more blacks would go to opera, ballet, and classical music concerts if these arts focused on slavery and Jim Crow laws and lynchings.
That’s not the key to black success. The key is to follow the good advice of Herman Cain, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Michael Steele, and others, and stop demanding benefits because of something bad that happened decades or even centuries ago.
Jefferson served as governor from June 1, 1779 to June 3, 1781 so if he signed such a bill then it was illegal. You also failed to mention that the bill merely made it legal for slave owners to free their own slaves or that it was repealed in 1792 and that in 1806 a law was passed requiring freed slaves to leave the state or be sold back into slavery.
He also argued for the freedom of a slave in Howell v Netherland, stating 'under that law [the law of Nature/God's law] we are all born free'.
He also lost his aruguement.
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.