I don't think Tim Robbins wants to bomb New York or Susan Sarandon wants to make Islam our official religion, but people have charged that they give support and comfort to our enemies and make common cause with them. You yourself have made extensive use of "guilt by association" tactics in your posts, so you understand the idea. I don't argue that Spooner is "guilty by association," though, just that associations between Spooner and neo-confederatism do exist and shouldn't be ignored. Spooner should not be represented as a typical or important abolitionist without serious consideration of the anarchist views that differentiated him from other, and more important abolitionists.
Spooner defended the "right to secession" and attacked unionist doctrines and efforts to fight back. He may not have agreed with everything the Confederates wanted to do, and may not have been willing to defend them from rebels in their own camp, but he certainly did write an apologia for secession, and hence, to all practical purposes, for the Confederacy. To be sure, he was anti-slavery, but the neo-confederate argument is that the war was not about slavery and that one could be pro-Confederate and anti-slavery, so this hardly counts as an objection.
The publication of Spooner's writings in De Bow's was an early milestone in the development of neo-confederate ideology and argument, and the move away from slavery to other justifications for the rebellion. There certainly are real contradictions between Spooner's anarchist denial of state sovereignty and the secessionists advocacy of that doctrine, but neo-confederate theory is rife with such contradictions. Intellectual ammunition is valued more than consistent thought, and Spooner provided Confederate apologists with such ammunition, if they chose to use it.
Spooner had no problem sending his writing to a pro-secession journal and giving them permission to publish "No Treason" and they had no problem publishing what he sent in and asking him for permission to reprint the pamphlet (see the headnote to Part One. The reference to the court in Boston in the footnote to Part Two may be some sort of copyright notice. Someone sent the pamphlet to De Bow's and that someone may have been Spooner himself. De Bow's didn't dig it out of court documents).
Spooner and De Bow's may not have agreed with each other on all particulars but neither had any trouble about using the other. That an abolitionist was willing to send an article to what had been the most prominent pro-slavery journal and was still unrepentant about secession and White supremacy suggests that he was not a typical abolitionist. Hair splitting and invective may obscure this, but those who may be interested or concerned may judge for themselves.
Spooner's article is far more -- or less -- than a scholarly study of the meaning of treason. Unbiased observers may see that by reading the attack on "the North" at the beginning of the excerpt in De Bow's. Spooner's support for the "right to secession" was precisely what unregenerate Confederates wanted, as is the reference to United States citizenship as "political slavery" and the United States government as a "tyranny." The anarchist sentiments and doctrines that Spooner passionately expresses in "No Treason" differentiate it from a sober, scholarly study of what treason is. Heavy on rhetoric and abstract theory, "No Treason #1" is light on serious constitutional analysis. I also doubt legal scholars are usually so free with exclamation points. "No Treason #2" makes more mention of the Constitution, but it too is heavy on anarchist theories and light on documentation.
Spooner's ideas were present at the creation of the neo-Confederate apologia. As a precursor and foundation of the Rockwellite argument, Spooner can't be taken as an unbiased outside arbiter of the controversy.
What you think is clear, and I hope that's also true of what I think. It's up to those who are interested in this question to make up their own minds. Links to the relevant articles are here. It's important, though, to read other articles from DeBow's to get a clear view of just who and what Spooner was flirting with.
If you had read my post carefully, you would see that I readily admitted that Jaffa was a distinguished Lincoln scholar, but other historians who aren't closely identified with ideological camps haven't yet weighed in on Di Lorenzo's book. When they do it will be the end of DiLorenzo's book among thinking people, but because a craving to believe is at the root of his appeal, it probably won't affect his sales.
That I have, and as my last post evidenced, I do so for a reason and based upon historical facts demonstrating his importance.
Most Americans in his own time and most scholars since would disagree.
Considering that you have yet to offer any specific evidence from any source supporting that claim, and considering that your entire claim itself is not based on factual examination but rather appealing to the authority of those same anonymous "scholars," it has become evident that I may safely and with confidence reject that claim as one without merit.
Those who are interested can consult the sources and make up their own minds.
That they may, and as I have repeatedly specified, the record of Spooner's importance to abolitionism is thoroughly supported in the specifics of that movement. If you are still unaware of those specifics, please see my previous post.
I've no doubt that for some people the history of American political thought in the 20th century couldn't be written without reference to Murray Rothbard, but for most Americans and most specialists it can and is. The cases are similar
Not really. If your analogy is intended to make note of Spooner's extremism as it relates to Rothbard's, as appears to be the case, I need only note that extremism was in good company among abolitionists. John Brown was about as extreme as the come. Now do you think that, by virtue of that extremism, he is dismissable from American history? Make such a claim and you will be laughed at. As for these ever-anonymous so-called "specialists" in abolitionism who allegedly ignore Spooner, such is simply not the case in practically everything i've seen. Go down to your local Barnes & Noble, if you doubt me, and find one of those "abolitionist reader" compilations that has excerpts of the "standard works" from the major participants in the movement. They almost always have an excerpt from Spooner's book. Heck, find yourself an old high school history textbook. You'll probably find a sentence in there mentioning the names and writings of a couple abolitionists (it's normally near the page with that painting of a bearded, wild-eyed John Brown that they always use). It often isn't much more than a paragraph, but you'll see three or four books or publications and their respective authors mentioned: Garrison with "The Liberator," Stowe with "Uncle Tom's Cabin," and Spooner with "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery."
I don't think Tim Robbins wants to bomb New York or Susan Sarandon wants to make Islam our official religion, but people have charged that they give support and comfort to our enemies and make common cause with them. You yourself have made extensive use of "guilt by association" tactics in your posts, so you understand the idea. I don't argue that Spooner is "guilty by association," though, just that associations between Spooner and neo-confederatism do exist and shouldn't be ignored.
Oh, so now its not "confederate apologism," but rather "neo-confederatism" that he's associated with? Now that's odd, especially considering that Spooner has been dead for over a hundred years. That having been said, why not simply admit the error in your sloppy and dishonest attempt to associate Spooner with racial rantings from earlier years in De Bow's?
Spooner should not be represented as a typical or important abolitionist without serious consideration of the anarchist views that differentiated him from other, and more important abolitionists.
Consider him in the context of whatever views you like, x. My contention is with your arbitrary attempt to dismiss his relevance to abolitionism, practically all of which has been grounded on a series of oft repeated but never specified appeals to anonymous authorities. And for the record, dismissing him on an association to libertarian anarchy is no more valid a tactic than dismissing him by appealing to anonymous authorities. If you truly wish to dismiss Spooner's importance to abolitionism, you must make a case for doing so. You must make a case why his book wasn't philosophically important to the movement. You must make a case why you think he didn't shape Gerrit Smith's politics or the Liberty Part's development. You must make a case why Spooner did not merit the heavy attention given to him by other abolitionists and by the leading political figures of the day. You have, to date, made no such case. Instead you continue to post appeals to anonymous authorities and associations to things like anarchy and DeBow's Review. Those are fallacies of distraction, x, and they are the basis of your entire commentary against Spooner to date.
Spooner defended the "right to secession" and attacked unionist doctrines and efforts to fight back.
That he did, though he properly characterized what you euphemize as "fighting back" for what it was, the exertion of coercive force. So what is your point?
He may not have agreed with everything the Confederates wanted to do, and may not have been willing to defend them from rebels in their own camp, but he certainly did write an apologia for secession, and hence, to all practical purposes, for the Confederacy.
That is not entirely true and, by stating it, you only further evidence your ignorance of his argument. In all seriousness, take a few minutes to read "No Treason" and the letter to Charles Sumner. You will find him very critical of the southern side of the conflict. His issue, however, was with the concept of government of consent. Spooner argued that, prior to the war, the American government was, at least in theory, one of consent by the governed. He was extremely-libertarian minded, but because he permitted that point in his philosophical system and accepted that in theory the U.S. Constitution formed a government of consent, he could not be called a full fledged anarchist prior to the war. "No Treason" was the turning point, and in it he outlines his argument in great detail. Simply put, Spooner argued that the government of consent that existed, at least in theory prior to the war, was violated by the war and made instead into a government resting on coercion. After all, that WAS what happened in the war - obedience was coerced from the southern states by the military force of the northern states. As a result of this, he argued, the union was no longer a valid or legitimate government but rather a tyranny based upon coercion instead of consent. Holding this argument to be the case, Spooner inescapably voiced a view that was consistent with the concept of secession. After all, the south was the party from which obedience was coerced. Simply noting that fact and theorizing about its occurence does not make one a confederate though, and it certainly doesn't make one a "neo-confederate" considering that Spooner died 100 years before that latter term was even in semi-relevant use.
To be sure, he was anti-slavery, but the neo-confederate argument is that the war was not about slavery
That is not an exclusively neo-confederate argument by any means. Lincoln himself said the war was not about slavery but rather about the union. Now what he meant by the union is a matter of debate, but the fact is that he openly said what you ascribe to "neo-confederatism," whatever that may be. In fact, as Spooner said, it had been universally admitted during the war that the war was not about slavery. One of Spooner's grievances with the war, if not his primary grievance, was that it was not about slavery.
and that one could be pro-Confederate and anti-slavery, so this hardly counts as an objection.
Neither attribute is necessarily exclusive or inherent, therefore no reason exists as to why one could be one of those things but not the other.
The publication of Spooner's writings in De Bow's was an early milestone in the development of neo-confederate ideology and argument,
Have you even bothered to check yet what was published there? The first article was one that Spooner probably considered an act of philanthropy to an economically-suffering region. The second was a legal argument on the crime of treason that he had self-published and filed in a Massachusetts courtroom. That DeBow's published it was not some "neo-confederate" scheme. It was not so mythological conspiracy. If one applies the William of Ockham's shaving device, a plausible explanation results: Simply put, in 1867, a huge portion of the southern population was being accused verbally, politically, and in some cases legally, of having committed the act of treason. So when a well-reasoned and intelligent legal defense against that allegation was formulated by a prominent lawyer of the time, it made sense for them to republish it and circulate it!
There certainly are real contradictions between Spooner's anarchist denial of state sovereignty and the secessionists advocacy of that doctrine, but neo-confederate theory is rife with such contradictions.
Spooner wrote in very explicit terms that the confederate concept of the state was every bit as mistaken as the yankee concept of the union. If you had read "No Treason" or if you had even the slightest clue about what you are commenting on, you would know this fact. But you do not, hence you make ignorant allegations of contradictions that did not historically exist in the essay itself. You are flying without a pilot's license, x, and it shows.
Yeah, cause it's a legal argument. Spooner was an attorney, you know.
Unbiased observers may see that by reading the attack on "the North" at the beginning of the excerpt in De Bow's.
Why dig through DeBow's when you can see the entire essay here? http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm
Spooner's support for the "right to secession" was precisely what unregenerate Confederates wanted, as is the reference to United States citizenship as "political slavery" and the United States government as a "tyranny."
That was his argument, x, regardless of whether the south or north liked it. If you would take a moment to read "No Treason" in itself you will find a reasoned argument by Spooner as to why he thought the post-war government was an abusive coercion-based institution. You may not agree with it, but you cannot question the fact that he formulated an intelligent argument and backed his case through the development of that essay.
The anarchist sentiments and doctrines that Spooner passionately expresses in "No Treason" differentiate it from a sober, scholarly study of what treason is.
Legal arguments are made for the courtroom, x. They are, or at least the good ones are, by their very nature passionate in nature, heavily logical in the way they procede, and conclusive in stating their intended result.
Heavy on rhetoric and abstract theory, "No Treason #1" is light on serious constitutional analysis.
That is because No Treason #1 lays out his theory of governmental concepts of treason. The constitutional analysis begins in No Treason #2, subtitled "The Constitution." You would know that if you were familiar with the work, but you have already evidenced that you are not.
I also doubt legal scholars are usually so free with exclamation points.
You must not be too familiar with courtroom speeches, and especially 19th century ones.
"No Treason #2" makes more mention of the Constitution, but it too is heavy on anarchist theories and light on documentation.
If that is your analysis of it, you missed the point of the document entirely. No Treason #2 starts from a basic premise that the Constitution says x, y, and z. Its purpose is then to take those concepts of what the Constitution says, logically develop the implications of them in a certain direction, and offer arguments to support the conclusions that are then arrived at. Spooner had little use for appealing to the authority of other lawyers as his argument was an exercise in logic, not quotations, and as such, it must be read accordingly, which you apparently did not do.
Spooner's ideas were present at the creation of the neo-Confederate apologia.
So now it's "neo-Confederate apologia," whatever that means. What happened to plain ole "confederate apologia," or its first replacement, "neo-confederatism," x? Could it be that you are playing a game of labels and associations rather than offering an honest examination of what Spooner said and did?
If you had read my post carefully, you would see that I readily admitted that Jaffa was a distinguished Lincoln scholar
Yes, but you then commented as if those who have attacked DiLorenzo's book, which includes the Jaffa crowd, were "laymen" rather than these ever-anonymous pros you keep predicting.
but other historians who aren't closely identified with ideological camps haven't yet weighed in on Di Lorenzo's book.
Tell me then - exactly who might those be? To date, you have offered nothing but the two things you apparently do best: equivocate and appeal to anonymous authorities. Neither of those devices is sufficient as proof of much of anything.