How Libertarians Ought To Think About The U.S. Civil War

Reason Papers ^ | Spring 2006 | TIMOTHY SANDEFUR

[puroresu]

Thanks for that correction. I had never seen nor heard of that Ford letter before. Apparently it was not widely known because I have always heard that Ford was pro-abortion (though he opposed taxpayer funding of it) and many columnists over the years have casually referred to him as supporting abortion.

I can’t agree with you on Stevens, though. Ford simply wasn’t interested in putting a judicial conservative on the court. You’re probably right that Ford wasn’t a culture warrior, but in a society where the courts are pushing us ever further to the left, the practical effects are capitulation to liberalism. For example, someone not interested in cultural issues wouldn’t care if (for a modern example) the courts forced same-sex “marriage” on us. Social conservatives in the South and in the Heartland understand what that means. That’s why Reagan won so many southern GOP primaries against Ford, I suspect. They didn’t see much chance of Ford combatting the aggressive leftism of the judiciary.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You might note the fact that in 1860, the tariffs on cotton were actually reduced (though still high). So are you advocating the position that reducing taxes (as was done) induces rebellion?

[wardaddy]

well...I can’t really argue when you put it that way and if it applies to both sides.

[tpaine]

Sorry, but the pdf formating defeats me.

[Delacon]

Go here and click on download document.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=933676

[ml/nj]

As you note the tariffs were still high, and the South had effectively lost all representation in the national government. As a conservative, you can imagine how they might have felt.

ML/NJ

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You might note the fact that in 1860, the tariffs on cotton were actually reduced (though still high).

There were no US tariffs on cotton. Tariffs are placed on imports, not exports.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

the South had effectively lost all representation in the national government.

22 senators and 67 congressmen is no representation?

Alexander Stephens, soon to become the confederate VP, had this take on the matter:

I do not anticipate that Mr. Lincoln will do anything, to jeopardize our safety or security, whatever may be his spirit to do it; for he is bound by the constitutional checks which are thrown around him, which at this time render him powerless to do any great mischief. This shows the wisdom of our system. The President of the United States is no Emperor, no Dictator-- he is clothed with no absolute power. He can do nothing, unless he is backed by power in Congress. The House of Representatives is largely in a majority against him. In the very face and teeth of the majority of Electoral votes, which he has obtained in the Northern States, there have been large gains in the House of Representatives, to the Conservative Constitutional Party of the country, which I here will call the National Democratic Party, because that is the cognomen it has at the North. There are twelve of this Party elected from New York, to the next Congress, I believe. In the present House, there are but four, I think. In Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Indiana, there have been gains. In the present Congress, there were one hundred and thirteen Republicans, when it takes one hundred and seventeen to make a majority. The gains in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, Indiana, and other States, notwithstanding its distractions, have been enough to make a majority of near thirty, in the next House, against Mr. Lincoln. Even in Boston, Mr. Burlingame, one of the noted leaders of the fanatics of that section, has been defeated, and a Conservative man returned in his stead. Is this the time, then, to apprehend that Mr. Lincoln, with this large majority of the House of Representatives against him, can carry out any of this unconstitutional principles in that body?

In the Senate, he will also be powerless. There will be a majority of four against him. This, after the loss of Bigler, Fitch, and others, by the unfortunate dissensions of the National Democratic Party in their States. Mr. Lincoln can not appoint an officer without the consent of the Senate -- he can not form a Cabinet without the same consent. He will be in the condition of George the Third (the embodiment of Toryism), who had to ask the Whigs to appoint his ministers, and was compelled to receive a Cabinet utterly opposed to his views; and so Mr. Lincoln will be compelled to ask of the Senate to choose for him a Cabinet, if the Democracy or that Party choose to put him on such terms. He will be compelled to do this, or let the Government stop, if the National Democratic Senators (for that is their name at the North), the Conservative men in the Senate, should so determine. Then how can Mr. Lincoln obtain a Cabinet which would aid him, or allow him to violate the Constitution? Why, then, I say, should we disrupt the ties of this Union, when his hands are tied-- when he can do nothing against us?

Nov. 14, 1860 link

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Sorry about that. Brain freeze. I actually meant that the tariffs on manufactured goods went down, which increased the bottom line from cotton. Of course, at the outbreak of the late great unpleasantness, the trend was reversed to pay for the war.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Of course, at the outbreak of the late great unpleasantness, the trend was reversed to pay for the war.

Well, to be honest (as a pro-Lincoln man on these threads), Lincoln's 1860 platform called for raising the tariff, although as Alexander Stephens pointed out in the speech I linked to in the other post, he was unlikely to get it passed it without southern support and compromise--or a southern walkout.