_____________
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.
The above commentary was written by a devout radical ABOLITIONIST Lysander Spooner.
Quoting on Lysander Spooner:
In response, Spooner published a series of political tracts, No Treason.
The most famous of these is No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority.
In this lengthy essay, Spooner argued that the Constitution was a contract of government (see social contract theory) which could not logically apply to anyone other than the individuals who signed it, and was thus void.
Furthermore, since the government now existing under the Constitution pursued coercive policies that were contrary to the Natural Law and to the consent of the governed, it had been demonstrated that that document could not adequately stop many abuses against liberty or prevent tyranny from taking hold...
"Spooner became a member of the socialist First International."
Thanks, central_va, for telling us where Sloth got the "special" idea of an unlawful US Constitution -- Lysander Spooner!
So in post-war 1868, Spooner was an anti-war, anti-Constitution, anti-big-business, radical abolitionist socialist/communist anarchist!
That means he was far from Conservative nor even Libertarian as we understand those today.
It also means this: when you begin making arguments against the Constitution as it was intended, then you do not support the Free Republic, but some other vision that is neither historical, workable or even seriously definable.
"ANARCHIST" or "COMMUNIST" best describe such ideas.