-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Jonathan Blanks, a research assistant at Cato Institute, has written an essay about the incoherent position of those libertarians who defend the Confederacy and claim that the Confederacy was within its rights to secede from the Union. Banks writes: “there is no legal or moral justification for supporting the Confederacy in the Civil War, it is impossible that there could be a libertarian one.”Slavery, as practiced in the Confederacy, would seem to be wholly inconsistent with libertarian principles. However, libertarianism is divided into economic libertarianism and personal libertarianism and these two views come into conflict regarding the Civil War.
In an ingenious observation, Jason Kuznicki noted that “Secession is the decision to step out of an existing political order, so it’s a category error to try to justify it legally.”
Some claim that the Confederacy represents a legitimate act of rebellion and point to the principles in the Declaration of Independence for support. But the Declaration of Independence places conditions on the right of the people to overthrow their government. “Prudence … will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes,” and the overthrow must come after “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” If the new government that is instituted violates individual rights instead of securing them, then the new government is not legitimate by Declaration of Independence standards.
Current justification of the rebellion via the Declaration of Independence would have been met with derision in 1861. John C. Calhoun, a leading politician and political theorist from South Carolina, denounced the principle of that all men are created equal saying it 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.”
The rationale for secession can be discerned by searching these four Declaration of Causes. Contrary to revisionist claims, economic policy factors (except as it applies to slavery) are nowhere mentioned. As Blanks states, “it is clear that the South’s actions—the catalyst for war—were explicitly motivated by freedom’s suppression.”
The “states’ rights” argument in also incoherent. As Clint Bolick puts it: “The very notion of states’ rights is oxymoronic. States don’t have rights, States have powers. People have rights. And the primary purpose of federalism is to protect those rights.”
H/T: Jonathan Blanks, Ilya Somin, Jonathan Blanks, Timothy Sandefur (pdf).
Tootie – the guy is funny and I do like his book cover. Interesting for me is that he is from Ireland, and he did not refer to the annexation of Northern Ireland by Great Britain. Although he hardly talked about anything in the clip.
How do you know of him?
Also, the states have the right to secede because the people have that right to withdraw from evil doers, despots and tyrants in their own personal lives. It is an unalienable right to self defense. It has to do with freedom of association as well.
Virginia, in particular, was promised she could leave the union if she didn’t like being in it. New York and Rhode Island too. This was understood at the time and that is the main reason Virginia and some other states voted to adopt the Constitution.
So it was common knowledge that the states could depart. Thus, Lincoln was a madman and mass murderer. And it is creepy how Democrats like him so much. No wait. It’s not creepy. It is understandable. Democrats adore mass murder.
Anyway, Jefferson wrote in his Kentucky Resolution:
‘That the government created by this compact [the Constitution] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of powers delegated to itself.’
The federal government cannot delineate the extent of its own powers. That is absolute power. And the founders abhorred it. Absolute power corrupts and murders (on a massive scale) absolutely.
Of course, Democrats love that.
John Quincy Adams on the 50 anniversary of the Constitution:
“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.”
We have come to this point because of nationalists insist on federalizing all our laws and creating a federal government with totalitarian powers. Both sides of the aisle have contributed to it. It is a credit to the GOP that it possesses the only people trying to stop it: Rand and Ron Paul.
Everyone else is nuts. Especially the Marxist pigs who run the Democratic Party.
The government under the Articles of Confederation was falling apart. The notion that the Constitution made the union “more perfect” was for external consumption only. This was not a perfection of the government, but a re-write.
Was the Constitution written and adopted in accord with the principles then in effect, namely the Articles, which required unanimous consent? Or can a morbid system just be shrugged off, like lizard skin.
Perhaps here:
http://youtu.be/aBq1Ml5kVCw
Bob
I’m not telling you to pick up arms. I’m just telling you that it is legitimate to do so when government has violated its compact agreement with its own people or when it has denied them their unalienable rights. That American men are too cowardly and disinterested to confront these gigantic criminals in DC is another issue.
Cato suggests there is no legal justification for watering the tree of liberty at this juncture in our history and I suggest they are incorrect.
As DC stands now most all deserve punishment. Some notable exceptions Rand and Ron Paul, of course.
But instead of that I suggest joining up with the 10th Amendment Center
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/
And supporting Oath Keepers
Follow Tom Woods.
Nullify: often. Keep the feds on the run.
Also, if you are suggesting that US soldiers are going to come after us with F-16s then you have surrendered to despotism and tyranny without a fight.
How does the citizen battle such a monster?
A good method is seen in this video with Gerard Casey (the part you should be interested in occurs between the 2 minute and 3:20 mark. But just watch it all up to the 3:20 mark (if you like)
If I’m lucky the video will be below here:
“If 6 billion people decide they arent going to listen to you anymore, what recourse do you have to change their decision? Arrest them all?”
It’s not me you’re going to have to worry about.
OK, Tootie,
What, exactly, are you suggesting we do? Please give us specific tactics. Should we rebel? That worked really well, last time.
Our founders threw off tyranny by force of arms. Is that what you advocate? Using ‘2nd Amendment remedies’ (otherwise known as small arms) against F-16s and tanks? A plot for a B-grade science-fiction movie, perhaps.
The Declaration of Independence was a justification, to the world, for breaking bonds between 13 colonies and Britain.
It’s not a blueprint for continuous rebellion against a government that the 13 colonies created for themselves.
If we’re oppressed, it’s because we oppressed ourselves. To whatever extent that’s true, we need to unoppress ourselves. Slowly and carefully.
At this moment, the ‘tyranny’ imposed by the Feds pales next to the tyranny which individual states are attempting (voting restrictions, subjugation of women).
correction
“critics of the unalienable right to secede”
The issue isn’t about states rights and it is likely that critics of the right to unalienable to secede (throw off tyrants in the manner that our founders did) are the ones who prefer to label it that way.
The author of this post writes:
“Prudence … will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes,” and the overthrow must come after “a long train of abuses and usurpations.”
Jefferson gives us no exact date about the time frame for that long train of abuses to occur and accumulate, but he suggests how SHORT that time period can be.
Let’s examine Jefferson’s time frame for throwing off tyrants.
The Declaration states:
“The 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.”
How long a period was that? George the third ruled from 1760 to 1820. That’s 60 years. It’s a “big” time in terms of the human life span. But the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. That is only 16 years of abuse!
Sixteen! Sixteen measly years.
By my calculation we are well beyond that in “tyrant years”. Our presidents have been despots since Lincoln established his despotism over the American people. That precedent has gone on now for nearly 150 years.
We are overdue.
The American people have been even more patient in my lifetime than the founders were. I’d say Americans gave the despots and tyrants in both parties enough time to see the error of their ways, their usurpations.
The current totalitarian grip by our federal government, the invasion of the feds into every aspect of our lives (health, education, food, housing, bank accounts, speech, and privacy), the militarization of our local police, and endless wars of aggression overseas by D.C. suggests that we have waited far too long to stop the usurpers of unalienable rights and our Constitution.
After the statement (in the Declaration of Independence) about repeated abuses, there directly follows the LIST of abuses. Those abuses occurred only within the lifetime of one man, King George. They don’t extend any further back in time. And only within the short period of 16 years.
LESS THAN ONE GENERATION OF TIME CAN PASS BEFORE A PEOPLE MIGHT NEED TO THROW OFF DESPOTISM..
Our founders grew up believing they were once free and then, in a short period of time, suddenly realized a completely reversal of their liberties IN ONE GENERATION. That is all it took for them to arm themselves against despotism and that is all it should take anyone.
One man’s short period of time (less than one generation) is all that is required to provoke a lawful rebellion by any people.
If that isn’t what the minimum time ought to be for the “tree of liberty” to be “refreshed” then there is no stopping tyrants except by even longer and more desperate suffering. Ask the people of North Korea about that. If you don’t stop tyrants quick enough your children starve to death or live in deprivation and despair for many decades to come if not all of their lives.
James Madison said it was our “first duty”.
He wrote:
“It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much … to forget it…”
The Cato Institute would seem to want us to “wait till the usurped power” has strengthened itself by exercise and precedents.
Why does Cato want us to wait until it is too late?
Perhaps they want it that way.
Great news Swarthmore. Those voter ID laws are a sham.
Ekeyra,
If 6 billion people revolted against the system, you, me and most other contributors here wouldn’t last out a year, the thugs taking over the revolt would have people who question authority killed, despite their political orientation. Therein lies the problem with revolution.
” “You’re right I dont. Id rather see 6 Billion sovereign individuals.”
The impossible dream of anarchists everywhere.”
If 6 billion people decide they arent going to listen to you anymore, what recourse do you have to change their decision? Arrest them all?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-voter-id-20120312,0,2478951.story Justice Dept strikes down Texas voter id law. States rights proponents will view this as a blow.
It was Blanks that noted that Kuznicki’s Tweet was “astute.” Why has everyone forgotten about him?
Kuznicki:
Secession, Legal Orders, and Justification
Sandefur:
Kuznicki, Somin, And Turley on secession
I’m probably in way over my head. But that’s never stopped me before. 🙂
“You’re right I dont. Id rather see 6 Billion sovereign individuals.”
The impossible dream of anarchists everywhere.
” “Liberals, who are typically more likely to oppose federalism…”
Please document.”
I didnt write that or opine that so i dont really feel the need to defend it or back it up.
“It’s a fun fantasy, but you really don’t want to find out what a non-collection of 50 ‘sovereign’ states would be like.”
You’re right I dont. Id rather see 6 Billion sovereign individuals.
Well then Mike, since Oro Lee has not answered my question, maybe you can help out….
How do you feel about
Same sex marriage?
Legalization of pot?
California paying for stem cell research?
If Roe were overturned, how would you feel about states rights then?
“Same sex marriage?
Legalization of pot?
California paying for stem cell research?
If Roe were overturned, how would you feel about states rights then?”
Anon,
State’s Rights is a nonsensical anachronism that in its history has caused far greater harm then good. State and Local governments are actually easier to control, than the national government. If Roe were overturned, perhaps 35 states would have laws against abortion. The same is true with pot and stem cell research. If in any given state you can get a determined minority of about 30% backing something, you can get it passed. See Prohibition and the Law that caused the Scopes Monkey trial. I could feed you examples all day, but to what end, your beliefs are unshakable. Mine aren’t, I’m a pragmatist, but nothing you have presented thus far makes even the slightest sense to me.
Ekeyra,
“Liberals, who are typically more likely to oppose federalism…”
Please document.
‘Nullification’ should not be lumped together with civil disobedience. The word ‘Nullification’ should not be used lightly.
Nullification was the tactic used by slave state governments to nullify Federal laws.
Nullification connotes an official declaration that attempts to void the power of the Federal government.
Nullification is un-Constitutional, and serves to undermine the nation.
There were, in 1787, compelling reasons to form a Federal government, and those reasons are still valid.
It’s a fun fantasy, but you really don’t want to find out what a non-collection of 50 ‘sovereign’ states would be like. The situation would be ephemeral. Alliances of states would conquer other, weaker states. Leave it in the realm of science-fiction and fantasy.
Strive, instead, to change laws that you don’t like. Voting, and civil disobedience, work, but it’s a slow process.
Ekeyra,
Damn good points….. Each and everyone is valid….