-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).
“The people make up the states—the people dont make up the federal govt. Big difference.”
Really.
I guess Madison was just pulling our leg when he started the Constitution with the words “We the People of the United States” then.
“So with this stellar bit of reasoning the citizens/governments of Fulton & DeKalb County, Georgia (Atlanta), having become fed up with the morons running the rest of the State can legally secede and fire upon the agents of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation if they come to stop it. After all what is a State but a bunch of different localities banding together? Why are you for States Rights and not County Rights?”
Because states are sovereign, not counties. The framers never mentioned anything about counties. They DID mention that states have power over the federal govt—something Bob fails to grasp. “states” is synonymous with “we the people”, he thinks they’re separate. The people make up the states—the people dont make up the federal govt. Big difference.
“South Carolina did not receive permission from the U.S.A. to secede, and the people, and soldiers there were citizens of the U.S.A. Firing on the army of the U.S.A. was clear cut treason.”
Didn’t receive permission? There you go again suggesting the Federal govt is OVER the states, something the framers DID NOT want. You keep missing that point. States are sovereign. I have already proved it. The states created the federal govt, not the other way around. Please get this through your head.
Bob said:
” It’s hard to wade through all of this, but I believe that you neglected to put into historical context, the quote from Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was speaking of Texas seceding from Mexico.”
But Lincoln said:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government…”
ANY people ANYWHERE…key words. Did ya miss that?
Larry,
“But Lincoln said:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government…”
ANY people ANYWHERE…key words. Did ya miss that?”
No, actually, I went through Lincoln’s entire speech. Was Lincoln quoting the Constitution? Lincoln’s words are not law. The Constitution is the law.
FAIL.
“There you go again suggesting the Federal govt is OVER the states, something the framers DID NOT want. You keep missing that point. States are sovereign. I have already proved it. The states created the federal govt, not the other way around. Please get this through your head.”
You proved no such thing, because it’s simply not true. You keep missing that point. States are not sovereign, and you have not proven it. I already quoted from the Preamble to the Constitution, and so did Gene H., above.
FAIL
“They DID mention that states have power over the federal govt—something Bob fails to grasp. “states” is synonymous with “we the people”, he thinks they’re separate. The people make up the states—the people dont make up the federal govt. Big difference.”
They didn’t mention that the states have power over the fed govt – please find it in the Constitution. The people make up the states and they make up the nation. The government of the nation takes precedence over the separate governments of the states, except in intra-state commerce, state taxes, and law enforcement within the state. That’s not even a rigid rule. Citizens of the U.S.A. have the same Constitutional rights, no matter which state they wander into. The Constitution supercedes state law.
FAIL
“…the federal govt is supposed to be the representation of the people—not the people themselves that are being represented.”
Makes no sense.
FAIL
“STATES form the Union—but that union is voluntary—not perpetual.”
Not voluntary, once the Constitution is ratified.
FAIL
“King George did not sign the declaration with COUNTIES but the STATES. The fact that I have to explain this to you [who seems to be up in years and seemingly educated] is astonishing.”
I, too, am astonished. Are you referring to the Declaration of Independence? That Declaration is the only one mentioned in this thread. King George’s signature is not on the Declaration of Independence. Did you think that he signed it, in rebellion against himself?
FAIL
Thanks for the patronizing “…up in years and seemingly educated,” to Mike. I’m 65 and seemingly have a doctorate. I am astonished that you would attempt to foist this fact-free pseudo-history of yours, onto anyone with a 6th-grade education. Onto anyone who can read the Constitution, to be specific.
Larry,
May I cut in, to interrupt this long conversation with yourself?
With all your corrections, I’m not sure which points I’m responding to are still valid.
1. First of all, don’t refer to the commenters here as ‘twits.’ It undermines your arguments. Did you wish to be taken seriously?
2. It’s hard to wade through all of this, but I believe that you neglected to put into historical context, the quote from Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was speaking of Texas seceding from Mexico. His speech was, as you say, 12 years earlier. Lincoln was certainly not applying this to the then existing states of the United States of America. That may not be consistent, but I’m not defending Lincoln.
3. Despite anything that Lincoln said about the U.S.A./Mexican war, Fort Sumter was on U.S.A. soil. The U.S.A. army was privileged to occupy any fort on soil of the U.S.A. South Carolina did not receive permission from the U.S.A. to secede, and the people, and soldiers there were citizens of the U.S.A. Firing on the army of the U.S.A. was clear cut treason.
4. After all of this verbiage, you still have not addressed your previous assertion that the Constitution of the U.S.A. allows secession. You were asked multiple times to elaborate. Were you wrong, or were you prevaricating?
5. I do not find, in the massive texts above, my referring to secession as ‘treason.’ I referred to the attack on the army of the U.S.A. at Fort Sumter as treason. I’m right. You, not so much.
6. “Was it treason for the militias in the Revolution to fire at the British??”
Yes, it was. The British considered the colonists to be British citizens. “If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately,” was attributed to Thomas Paine. The penalty for treason was hanging.
7. “States are free and independent and combined they form a Union. The federal govt did not create the states—the states created the Federal govt. Do you not know that?”
No, I don’t know that, because it’s not true. Read the Preamble to the Constitution. “We the people of the United States…,” not “We the states…”
8. “What point are you making that the CSA was firing at the UNITED STATES ARMY? The CSA didnt recognize that government as their government anymore.”
The ‘Confederate States of America’ was never a legal entity. There existed an insurrection against the U.S.A., which called itself the CSA. The insurrectionists, still citizens of the U.S.A., fired on the ‘UNITED STATES ARMY,’ as you so CAPS LOCKly put it.
9. “Bob said:
“Laws aren’t nullified because citizens don’t feel like obeying them.”
If they are unconstitutional, oh yes they can!
“Legislatures and courts usually handle stuff like that. And state legislatures can’t nullify Federal law.”
If they are unconstitutional, oh yes they can!”
Nope. The Supreme Court rules on constitutionality of laws. No one else. South Carolina ratified that, May 23, 1788. You could look it up. Was South Carolina just joking?
10. “Why can’t you get this?”
Because you haven’t made any valid points. There’s nothing to “get.”
“What point are you making that the CSA was firing at the UNITED STATES ARMY? The CSA didnt recognize that government as their government anymore.”
So with this stellar bit of reasoning the citizens/governments of Fulton & DeKalb County, Georgia (Atlanta), having become fed up with the morons running the rest of the State can legally secede and fire upon the agents of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation if they come to stop it. After all what is a State but a bunch of different localities banding together? Why are you for States Rights and not County Rights?
Good point, Mike!
But it reaches not quite far enough. If we are invoking imaginary privileges, why stop there?
“A man’s home is his castle.” It’s in the Constitution! Or somewhere.
“Doth not a man have the right to make and dithobey hith own lawth?”
-Bob Kauten
A man (or a woman) should not be bound by even so much as a homeowner’s association, much less city ordinances.
What has happened to our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of every individual from all laws?
Shotgun Willie sits around in his underwear
Biting on a bullet and pulling out all of his hair
Shotgun Willie’s got all of his family there
-Willie Nelson
Bob said:
“Let’s see, a contingent of the U.S. Army occupied a U.S. fort on U.S. soil.
That’s not an invasion, sorry.”
That may have been Lincoln’s interpretation, but it surely wasn’t the interpretation of a newly formed country called the Confederate States of America, who had just seceded from the United States government—hence not giving a shit about an army that was part of a country they had just seceded from, hence also not being the “United” states anymore, if there were some states that had already separated from it. The CSA didnt care if was the United States Army or the Poland Army, it was still a country NOT considered a part of their newly formed one. Are you understanding now? You may not AGREE with the Southerners interpretation of the Constitution—and except for the slavery issue, they were completely right about—-but you have to be just willingly ignorant to understand the meaning of secession.
“Firing on the U.S. Army is treason. In this case, an act of treason that caused the deaths of over half-a-million people. Glorious, noble, don’t you think? All wars are.”
If Russia has approached South Carolina waters in a ship in order to provoke, would it be considered treason to fire at them? No, I dont think so. It would be self-defense. It was self-defense for SC to fire upon a ship that belonged to ANOTHER COUNTRY…the United States…in which the CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA had just seceded from, hence making the USA another country [not to mention NOT the United States anymore, since all states were NOT united now]. What point are you making that the CSA was firing at the UNITED STATES ARMY? The CSA didnt recognize that government as their government anymore. They already had their own president, Jefferson Davis, who had been sworn in before Lincoln was sworn in. They didnt acknowledge Lincoln as their president, nor did they acknowledge the USA as their country anymore. So, what was your point?
Was it treason for the militias in the Revolution to fire at the British?? How would we have formed our country if not for SECESSION? We SECEDED from Great Britain—so the very ACT of secession cannot be treasonous, or you would have to agree that our country was formed from treason….correct? Do you think the framers, after seceding from a tyrant [King George] and beginning a new country were going to turn right around and adopt the VERY SAME government as Great Britain, the very government we just seceded from? That is why they permitted secession, so that incase OUR government became tyrannical, no state would be bound by the very same kind of tyranny we just broke apart from.
Why can’t you get this?
Bob said:
“Laws aren’t nullified because citizens don’t feel like obeying them.”
If they are unconstitutional, oh yes they can!
“Legislatures and courts usually handle stuff like that. And state legislatures can’t nullify Federal law.”
If they are unconstitutional, oh yes they can!
Oh I forgot one:
President Wilson———-World War I [sinking of Lusitania]
im sorry, i meant to say above:
“Secession is the right to seperate from the voluntary Union”—-not “non-voluntary”. Non-voluntary is what everyone here believes it is, but none of the framers believed that. They all knew the states were in a voluntary Union. Lincoln even knew it was voluntary at one time [at least as far back as 1848—-as I gave you his quote], but once he became President, it all changed. He felt the secession of states was personal against him, and he was not about to have it—not on his watch. So he murdered 700,000 Americans to accomplish his agenda.
When Lincoln created the pretext for the civil war and provoked the South into firing first, that was just the first in a long list of provocations created by presidents to start war [when the president wanted war and did not want to be the aggressor]. Here is a short list of later examples:
President McKinley—Spanish-American war
FDR———–Pearl Harbor
LBJ———–Vietnam
George W. Bush———–Iraq
Bob said:
“Supreme political power is held by only one entity in the United States of America, and that entity with the supreme political power is the nation known as the United States of America. Sovereignty is not held by any of the smaller units within that nation.”
Actually you’re wrong. Very wrong. The term “United States” was never meant to be used in a monolithic sense. It is meant to be used in the plural…United States…just the way it sounds…United States—meaning: states that are united—-NOT “United States” as some monolithic title describing just one centralized piece of land.
States are free and independent and combined they form a Union. The federal govt did not create the states—the states created the Federal govt. Do you not know that?
The states formed a VOLUNTARY agreement when entering the Union—and it’s not even POSSIBLE that states can surrender their sovereignty to a centralized power.
The states have the rights of nullification and secession. Nullification is the right to ignore unconstitutional federal laws. Secession is the right to seperate from the non-voluntary Union. If states are not sovereign as you claim, that means the Federal govt has supreme authority over the states, and that is NOT what the founders wanted, nor what they wrote down. The federal govt is to be the servant of the states. The ONLY power the federal govt is to have is what the states delegate to it.
Remember the STATES were created first, then the federal govt. How can the creation be greater than its creator?
My last paragraph meant to say:
“I have just refuted the MYTH that secession is treason by Lincoln’s OWN words and refuted the MYTH that the South just fired at the Union for no reason whatsoever through excerpts from actual columns from NORTHERN newspapers. And you twits will STILL believe your 10th grade history books over documented FACTS.”
Instead of firing back at me with ad hominem attacks and 2 paragraph long responses that address nothing I say—I want you all here to respond to the actual QUOTES I used by Lincoln and the quotes from the newspapers. Those are not MY words, they are documented words that can’t be rewritten—-but oh how many have tried to rewrite history for the past 150 years and all of you on this blog have just gobbled up the textbook Lincoln, that he was a saint and did nothing wrong and hated slavery. None of it is true, but even QUOTES from Lincoln don’t persude anyone here. If HIS OWN WORDS do not make you see the light, what will?
Bob said:
“Lincoln provoked the ‘South’ into firing on Fort Sumter?
Let’s see, a contingent of the U.S. Army occupied a U.S. fort on U.S. soil.
That’s not an invasion, sorry.”
Yes, Lincoln did provoke the South into firing. South Carolina seceded in December 1860. Lincoln would not have ANY state secede and leave the Union, and he made sure of that at ALL costs—-this DESPITE the fact that 12 years earlier he gave a speech to Congress and was 100% FOR the secession of states when he said:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—-a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right onfined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhibit”.
He said that before Congress in January 1848. So, here we have , ONCE AGAIN, Lincoln’s OWN WORDS flying in the face of you all here on this blog. Your defense of Lincoln is more of a defense than his OWN words. It sounds like Lincoln sure as hell believed in secession too! I also reminded you twits earlier of the New England secessionists in the early 1800’s—they attempted to secede too, but when they thought their future in politics would be affected by it, they chose not to—–NOT because it was wrong or treasonous, but because of their own selfishness. Not ONCE did anyone tell the New Englanders that it was TREASON to secede, not once.
Lincoln was advised by his to military commanders that an incoming ship would be considered a threat to confederates and prompt an attack, so Lincoln sent a ship of food provisions and additional armed soldiers to Fort Sumter. The confederates fell for the ploy and fired the first shot. This was all planned by Lincoln because Lincoln wanted to take military action against the South but did not want to be the aggressor.
Even NORTHERN newspapers reported Lincoln’s instigated it.
The Providence Daily Post said:
“Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor”
The Jersey City American Standard wrote:
“there is a madness and ruthlessness [in Lincoln] which is astounding…this unarmed vessel…is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South, which act by the pre-determination of the government is to be the pretext for letting loose the horrors of war”
Maybe this is why Lincoln shut down over 300 newspapers during the war and imprisoned their editors—–columns just like this.
I have just refuted the fact that secession is treason by Lincoln’s OWN words and refuted that the South was provoked into firing first by excerpts from actual columns from NORTHERN newspapers. And you twits will STILL believe your 10th grade history books over documented FACTS.
Yeah. It was big news in Austin. Lots of fans turned out for his memorial service. For those who don’t know: Leslie Cochran
Nal…..
You did not tell us that leslie Cochran died…… He will be missed…..
Why is it i feel the need to defend my positions more from the people who share some of them, then the people who do not?
Mike,
The US spends more money on “defense” than the rest of the planet combined. They are the biggest, well funded, and most ruthless gang, right now. Your nightmare scenario is our current paradigm.
Also, when have i ever advocated armed revolution? All i’ve ever advocated is ignoring the decrees of a bunch of pompous old men who will tell you to your face and without a hint of shame or irony that they dont have time to even read the laws they pass, yet fully expect you to abide by them.
People making individual decisions to live their lives peacefully makes society function. If people stop making those decisions it doesnt matter how many cops or swat teams or tanks the government has, because they will be outnumbered and cut off from their source of funding. Have more faith in your fellow human beings. If the vast majority felt like going “mad max” one day, what could stop them anyway?
“Have more faith in your fellow human beings.”
Ekeyra,
You and I do agree on certain things and for those we disagree on your reasoning is always well thought out and cogent. However, while I have great empathy for almost all people, including those I disagree with, my experience has taught me to have little faith in humans when it comes to political process. The tendency of many on all sides of the political spectrum to seek out leaders who appear “strong” is I think genetic, as with the Great Apes. In that respect anarchy appeals to me, except that I know that anarchy leads to fascism, because it would frighten too many people who would seek that “strong” leader to protect them from what they would perceive as chaos. Humanity simply needs to evolve further, or it will remain stuck in a loop of predations and violence.
Bob,
Glad you enjoyed it. If you haven’t already, be sure to check the links in my previous comments for more of the on-going discussion.
I somehow got out-of-sync in my reading of these comments. I had missed a few.
Thanks, ‘Larry’! Your comments are hilarious!
But I see through you, Bill Maher! You’ve invented this ‘Larry’ character as a parody. You had me going for a while, but no one’s really that deluded, Bill! You pushed it just a little too far.
Thanks, it’s been fun!
And, David Drumm (Nal), thanks so much for posting your article. We had a good time! I looked some stuff up, found out what-in-the-world a ‘category error’ is. Learned a few things.
Lincoln provoked the ‘South’ into firing on Fort Sumter?
Let’s see, a contingent of the U.S. Army occupied a U.S. fort on U.S. soil.
That’s not an invasion, sorry.
Firing on the U.S. Army is treason. In this case, an act of treason that caused the deaths of over half-a-million people. Glorious, noble, don’t you think? All wars are.
You say,
“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?”
Exactly. ‘We the people,’ not ‘we the states.’ Delegates of we the people (those living at the time) created the Federal government, with all of its virtues and faults.
The Federal government consists partially of a Legislature and a President, which are elected by we the people. The Federal government can just say no. That’s why it’s called a government.
Why you need this explained to you is a mystery.
Definition of ‘sovereign’: “one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty” (Merriam-Webster).
Supreme political power is held by only one entity in the United States of America, and that entity with the supreme political power is the nation known as the United States of America. Sovereignty is not held by any of the smaller units within that nation.
Oh, and stop asking people in this discussion if they are ‘insane,’ or ‘nuts.’
It’s disrespectful, and only reflects the mental state of the questioner.
Mike said
“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.”
Yes it would have been FREE labor, but not efficient enough and sure as hell not FASTER than machines.
“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?”
Lincoln provoked the South into firing. Keep in mind, no one died in that attack. You really think Lincoln was going to STOP slavery? He said during his first inaugural address he had NO INTENTION of interfering with Southern slavery and if he did, he would have no constitutional authority to do so.
Dont believe ME? You can read it here: [third paragraph in his speech]
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/lincoln1.htm
Hell, Lincoln even supported a constitutional amendment to prohibit the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery!! And you sit there and tell me the South feared Lincoln would “thwart their efforts toward making slavery a national institution”???? Are you insane???
“but not efficient enough and sure as hell not FASTER than machines.”
Larry,
Would that have not been efficient enough because Blacks were running the machines. That is the essence of factory work. Workers operate machinery.
Didn’t the slaves run the cotton gins?
Finally, where is your apology for stating that the right to secede was built into the Constitution as a fact? You may talk a good line of bullshit Larry, but clearly that is what it is. I give you your advice of studying more, but when ones mind is made up, the facts only get in the way. Look how your reading has led to a misunderstanding of the Constitution, in favor of your presumption the South was victimized.
Larry:
You said I repeated “Lincoln was a saint.” That is untrue. That’s called being a liar. I will not deal with you in the future.