-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).
Larry,
I know there were some states who outlawed slavery later than the bulk of the North that outlawed years before the EP. These same states did not have the problem with Jim Crow laws that you seem to want to blame on the Feds too. Kentucky tried to secede, but remained neutral and two of the states you mentioned outlawed slavery during the Civil War.
“We are citizens of the United States of America. Check your passport. Individual states are not sovereign. An individual state cannot legally remove the citizenship of the U.S.A. citizens within it.”
Actually you are wrong. Very wrong. Sovereignty rests with the states, not the Federal government. What do you think the meaning of “We the people” means if not for state sovereignty? What would it matter what “we the people” said if the federal government can just say no?
Each state declared its sovereignty and Independence from England on its own—not as a part of a monolithic “United States”. When King George signed the declaration, he signed with each individual state.
It’s the whole reason why elections are decided by electoral college instead of votes of “the whole people”—to ensure state sovereignty. If not for state sovereignty, there would be no need for state legislators or senators. It would just be an authoritarian rule from a central government and their King. This is why when the federal government passes certain laws, certain states can opt NOT to follow it. For example: Many states have now opted out of Obamacare—–can you tell me how this could be permitted if states weren’t sovereign and HAD to obey the federal government?
“The fact that the act of secession is granted by the Constitution?”
Larry,
As Bob Kauten pointed out that statement is not a “fact” and the so-called “Right of Secession” does not exist in the Constitution of the United States”. Some people, grasping at straws may have inferred it from the Declaration of Independence, but the DOI is not law. Given that the basis of your argument rests on a fact that doesn’t exist, your argument fails.
“If someone invaded your home, and you shot the intruder out of defense of you and your home—would you appreciate being called the one who “rebelled”???”
I didn’t answer your question above because it was based on a “fact” that doesn’t exist. The firing on Fort Sumter was a planned act of treason by the CSA, which wanted to create an incident that would start the rebellion. They didn’t accept a duly elected President, who they perceived would thwart their efforts towards making slavery a national institution, Kansas perchance?
“the only glaring error of the Constitution is that it expresses that all men are created equal and all deserve freedom and liberty because of the natural law—yet the Constitution included 3 clauses that acknowledged slavery and did not condemn it.”
Yes that was a glaring error of the Constitution and there are many other errors within it. Look at why this error was made and we see it was because of the insistence of the Southern States that slavery remain, or they would not sign. Since may of the signers were slaveholders we can understand why this was so. However, your argument still avoids the truth which is that slavery was and is a horrible thing, done solely for profit. By my moral standards it is unholy, perhaps your moral standards are somewhat less restrictive?
“Slavery was NOT the cause of the Civil War, high tariffs was.”
Nonsense. A justification made up after the fact to try and rationalize treason and carried forth today to “whitewash” (apt term) the Southern infamy.
“Slavery in the United States was nothing more than government-sponsored racism.”
Finally Larry, you produce a fact. Yes it was government sponsored racism, which was imposed by the South for profit. Now admittedly the Slave Trade was started long before, but which section of the country benefited from it more? That Northerners went along with it for profit also does them no credit.
There are stains in American history no doubt, but other than the planned genocide of Native Americans, no stain equals that of slavery.
“Get away from the school textbooks Mike and start learning FACTS about Lincoln, secession and slavery.”
Larry, you shout “FACTS” and yet your central fact isn’t true. I would respectfully suggest that it is you who need to study more.
“Slavery was becoming less profitable by 1861 and it would have fizzled out on its own without a war, that is fact. The industrial revolution would have made slavery in the south less and less economical.”
There you go again with spouting a non-existent “fact”. The industrial Revolution would have made slavery more profitable simply because having arduous factory work done for free would have increased manufacturers bottom line.
The people of the South have paid for many sins, created by the wealthy elite that ruled them the and rules them now. It is by inculcating their citizens with this nonsensical, dishonest self-pity that continues to make this part of our country the least democratic and most poorly developed area of our country and that is a damned shame. Due to spreading this myth of Southern victimhood the South in general has the poorest standard of living and other lifestyle measures of any other region. I feel bad for so many Southern Whites who have been taken in by these historical falsehoods and blame other for their misfortunes, when in fact it is their leaders who either are among the wealthy elite, or who are the servants of that elite. This includes supposedly pious men who would have us believe that Jesus was the first Capitalist.
Bob, something you said that was quite funny…..
“The slave states did consent. They ratified the Constitution. Sorry, I wasn’t there.”
The slave states consented because they were in the NORTH and the NORTH was not being hit with the incredibly outrageous tariffs that were inflicted on the South. That was the reason for the war! Because Southerners were being hit by a huge tariff that was not being imposed on the North—so to say the slave states consented, while true, is in essence inadvertently agreeing in the central cause of the war—-high tariffs—–tariffs that were NOT administered to the North, but were in fact being administered in the South.
I guess the slave states [North] wouldn’t secede from a Union in which they didn’t feel its government wasn’t abusing them! Good holy lord, you people really are pieces of work!
Nal, you took my quote out of the context of my entire paragraph, which justified mentioning Lincoln. I said clearly:
“The South actually seceded PEACEFULLY until they were invaded in South Carolina at Fort Sumter and they defended themselves from invasion. No one died at Fort Sumter, so despite the invasion by Lincoln’s troops, the South was not guilty of murder at the preset of the war. Lincoln did not PEACEFUL secession happen. Most Northern newspapers SUPPORTED the South’s secession, that is why Lincoln had the papers shut down and their editors imprisoned. This is all documented, but Lincoln-cultists like Nal just keep repeating the “Lincoln was a saint” crapola.”
That comment was clearly on topic. You omitted the pertinent part of my quote and only included the part you could comment on. That’s called being a coward.
Bob, the DOI is not US Law, you are correct. But the fact that our country up until 1789 was under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union…and then in 1789 when we dissolved the Union by nullifying the Articles meant that our country was no longer a “perpetual Union” since we seceded from that document. The words “perpetual Union” are not in the Constitution. It was understood by everyone in the early days that no state could be forced to enter or remain in the Union.
But I will tell you one thing. There is absolutely NO law that permitted Lincoln to do what he did. Show me ONE shred of evidence that Lincoln had the right and authority to invade sovereign states. Just show me ONE thing. “Secession” was not this evil, treasonous word up until 1861 like it is now. Nearly everyone understood that secession was permitted. The New England Federalists attempted to secede back in the early 1800’s but they finally decided not to—NOT because it wasn’t permitted or because it was evil or treasonous—but because many of the members of the convention feared that voting on secession would ruin any chances of holding public office one day, so the voted against it. No one ever questioned the RIGHT to secede during all this—-but only the wisdom of doing so because it might stifle future careers in politics or hurting them economically.
You really should start reading books. It works wonders.
Nal,
You’ve been here long enough to know people will put words in your mouth…..
Larry:
I didn’t mention Lincoln at all.
Larry,
Finally, we’re back on topic.
“The fact that the act of secession is granted by the Constitution?”
Where, please? Quote it for me. It’s a relatively short document. I’ve read it a few times, plus numerous analyses. I don’t recall seeing that.
You said, “Jefferson clearly said that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So, Mike, you tell me…if the South did not consent—which they did NOT, that strips the government of their power, does it not? Government has no power without consent of the people Jefferson clearly wrote.”
Yes, Jefferson clearly wrote that, in the Declaration. It’s not U.S. law. It’s not in the Constitution, which is U.S. law. Including such a clause would be ridiculous. Laws aren’t nullified because citizens don’t feel like obeying them. Legislatures and courts usually handle stuff like that. And state legislatures can’t nullify Federal law.
The slave states did consent. They ratified the Constitution. Sorry, I wasn’t there.
The Constitution, nowhere, says that any time a state feels ornery, it can secede. If you’re living in any nation, you can, of course, simply say that the laws no longer apply to you. But the rest of the nation won’t agree.
We are citizens of the United States of America. Check your passport. Individual states are not sovereign. An individual state cannot legally remove the citizenship of the U.S.A. citizens within it.
That was true then, and it’s true now. If you don’t like it, modify the Constitution. There is a procedure for that, right in the Constitution.
If you want to bluster about this, fine with me. I’m just telling you how it is. Your refusal to accept it won’t change it.
rafflaw, your answer:
Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware and Maryland—border states but they remained in the Union and did not outlaw slavery. New Jersey allowed slavery until 1865 as well. The Emancipation Proc. did nothing about NORTHERN slavery. Northerners still were allowed to keep their slaves. Despite the Proclamation outlawing SOUTHERN slavery..it did no such thing. Even ones who were supposedly “free” went right into the custody of the federal government—hence still not “free”.
“Firing on US troops then as now was treason. The CSA was intent on being treasonous to support their unholy slavery system. They lost but like all bullies can’t even accept that they brought it on themselves. Underlying the support of this mythology is unvarnished racism, which those who feel that way expose their cowardly hypocrisy.”
They brought WHAT on themselves? The fact that the act of secession is granted by the Constitution? Firing on US troops was no more treasonous than the Revolutionary War militias firing on the redcoats. The wars of 1775-83 and 1861-1865 were exactly the same war—wars of secession. The Declaration of Independence itself is a declaration of secession.
You people act like the Federal government is above the American people. They are not. Jefferson clearly said that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So, Mike, you tell me…if the South did not consent—which they did NOT, that strips the government of their power, does it not? Government has no power without consent of the people Jefferson clearly wrote.
So exactly what is your point Mike? I also noticed that you didnt answer my question [shocker]. Here it is again. This time, would you kindly answer it?
“If someone invaded your home, and you shot the intruder out of defense of you and your home—would you appreciate being called the one who “rebelled”???”
Slavery was NOT the cause of the Civil War, high tariffs was. The Southerners did not create slavery. That had existed centuries before 1776. In fact, the only glaring error of the Constitution is that it expresses that all men are created equal and all deserve freedom and liberty because of the natural law—yet the Constitution included 3 clauses that acknowledged slavery and did not condemn it.
Where in the hell do you get off saying that slavery is “their [the South’s] unholy slavery system”??? The Constitution wrongfully allowed slavery to exist and the North still had slaves in 1861. Dozens of countries prior to 1861 ended slavery through compensated emancipation. The US is the ONLY country that fought a war and used that as an excuse. Slavery was becoming less profitable by 1861 and it would have fizzled out on its own without a war, that is fact. The industrial revolution would have made slavery in the south less and less economical. It had already declined in the North and it wouldnt have lasted much longer in the South.
Slavery in the United States was nothing more than government-sponsored racism. The US government from its origin in 1776 allowed slavery to exist and did nothing to stop it. Lincoln even admitted the war wasn’t about slavery—he continually claimed his war was about “saving the Union”—but even that was absurd. How can he “save” a Union in whose Constitution he was continually trampling on? That’s like “saving” a marriage by being unfaithful and beating your wife.
Get away from the school textbooks Mike and start learning FACTS about Lincoln, secession and slavery. Secession being treason is a big MYTH, and you accept it hook, line and sinker.
Firing on US troops then as now was treason. The CSA was intent on being treasonous to support their unholy slavery system. They lost but like all bullies can’t even accept that they brought it on themselves. Underlying the support of this mythology is unvarnished racism, which those who feel that way expose their cowardly hypocrisy.
Larry,
I will bite. Which states in the North legalized slavery?
Bob Kauten,
“Never Mind” Agree
Ha! I was going to suggest that we fight the Civil War over again…then I realized, a lot of folks never stopped fighting it. Never mind.
I rather like Two, Blouise.
It explains the excess baggage.
oops
Too Tea
😉
rafflaw, you said:
“I would like to echo what Mike S. said above. The South’s secession was an attempt to continue their way of enslaving people as evidenced by their long standing Jim Crow laws after the Civil War.”
Did the North also have slaves?? Yes, they did. In fact, the North was able to KEEP their slaves even AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation was issued [which actually freed NO slaves by the way].
So, please tell me—-how did just the SOUTH enslave people but the North did not??
Mike S. –youre nuts. You said:
“As this discussion possibly rages on, as it has in the past here, let me simply state my position. The South’s rebellion and its’ consequences was the result of their own tyrannical governance. The “elite” have always controlled the Southern States to the detriment of their citizens, both White and Black. The act of rebellion was nothing less than unjustified treason against the United States, motivated by greed, not principle. Those who still maintain support for this treason today are the real “Un-Americans” and should be vilified as such. The problem is that most of them are so full of the propaganda taught them for years that they are unable to see the truth of their hypocrisy.”
How exactly did the South rebel? By PEACEFULLY seceding?? The NORTH invaded the South and the South defended their land. If someone invaded your home, and you shot the intruder out of defense of you and your home—would you appreciate being called the one who “rebelled”???
I would like a direct response to my question instead of your usual ad hominem response.
Two Tea
😉
It’s nice to see what we’ll be getting if the top moves ahead much…..this is the best they can do with the schooling that they have already been provided…… Anymore education for them would prove to be a waste…..right tootles……..