-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).
“Every time Lincoln or the Civil War is mentioned, you’re off to the races demoniizing Lincoln.”
Exactly. Everytime he is MENTIONED, meaning I am not the one who brings up the subject….people on this blog do. If it was an obsession of mine, I would talk about him just under ANY post. But it is when YOU guys bring him up that I offer facts about him, because I get sick and tired of people like you portraying him as a saint. He was far from you portray him as…a good guy who just didn’t do some things right. He was a tyrant and the complete opposite of what the high school history books tell us.
“Every assertion I’ve ever seen you make has been refuted.”
Really? When? Every assertion I ever make is IGNORED, not refuted. Here is a short list of the evils Lincoln did that NONE of you have refuted:
1. Suspended habeas corpus WITHOUT the consent of Congress [he did it by himself. The Constitution says ONLY Congress has that authority. He was a dictator]
2. Violated international law and waged war on civilians and burned entire towns populated ONLY by civilians, executed civilians, looted and plundered the towns. He expressed personal thanks to Sheridan for the atrocities and war crimes he committed.
3. Thanked his naval commander Gustavus Fox for manipulating the South Carolinians into firing the first shot by provoking them with an oncoming ship.
4, His continual white supremacist rhetoric and his utter disgust for the black race, not to mention his apathy for slavery. His own words incriminate him on these very issues and I have posted many times—-which nobody has refuted.
5. Shut down over 300 opposition newspapers for having the audacity for reporting Lincoln’s tyrannical and unconstitutional actions [including provoking the South into firing the first shot]. He censored all telegraph communications, he imprisoned the Mayor of Baltimore as well as a large percentage of the duly elected legislature of Maryland. Illegally created the state of West Virginia. He deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic opposition, Clement L. Vallandigham. Violated the second amendment by disarming the border states.
6. He favored the colonization of all blacks to anywhere but the United States. He was a member of the American Colonization Society as well as the Illinois Colonization Society. He supported the Illinois Back Codes which deprived the small number of blacks in the state of any semblance of citizenship.
7. Did not, nor had any interest in freeing slaves. He never said freeing slaves was the reason for his war and certainly did nothing to end it. He said during his first inaugural address he had no intention of interfering with Southern slavery and even if he did, he had no constitutional authority to do so. But everyone here IGNORES Lincoln’s OWN WORDS and still repeats the lie that Lincoln wanted slavery over and he freed slaves.
8. He supported a constitutional amendment that would PREVENT Congress from abolishing and interfering with slavery. The amendment read:
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of the state.” [“Domestic institutions} meant SLAVERY]
9. Issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Taney for having the audacity to oppose the fact that Lincoln [all by himself] didnt have the authority to suspend habeas corpus [but ONLY Congress does]. The warrant was never served ONLY because of the lack of a federal marshall who had the balls to take him from his home and throw him in prison.
I have more if you want, but do you actually NEED more than this? Really? If you can call the above facts unimportant, than everything is unimportant to you. All of the above is documented FACT, and you nor anyone else on this blog has refuted ONE WORD of it [unless you call ad hominem attacks “refutation”].
You claim that you have not portrayed Lincoln as a “saint” but you have never ever mentioned any of the above evils I just did. Because you’re willing to ignore them. I listed 9—-[well there is more than 9 within this very list, I lumped some within the same listing], but I could have listed 50 at least. If you NEED more things than this, then it’s YOU, not me, who needs help.
“Gene, I have no obsession with Lincoln. However, I do have an obsession with the truth, and when people like you and others portray him as a saint, I chime in and offer the truth”
Bullshit, Larry. Every time Lincoln or the Civil War is mentioned, you’re off to the races demoniizing Lincoln. You clearly do have an obsession with Lincoln, however, it has nothing to do with the truth. It has to do with you wanting to make him the nexus of all evil in American history. Every assertion I’ve ever seen you make has been refuted. You wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you on the ass, Larry. Why? Because that is the nature of your obsession. You need a scape goat and you picked Lincoln. No amount of facts will deter you from your focus on Lincoln. You don’t see your obsession because like many mental illnesses it comes with a form of agnosia – you are blind to your own obsessive behavior. The same obsessive behavior you display here whenever Lincoln or the Civil War is mentioned. The same obsession that led you to say “when people like you and others portray him as a saint” despite the fact that I previously portrayed Lincoln as anything but a saint.
You need help, Larry.
Bob said:
“Larry, you just told me I was a racist-that I “…must be since you agree that the Supreme Court is always right and always makes constitutional decisions…”
Please quote me, where I said that the “…Supreme Court is always right and always makes constitutional decisions…” I didn’t.”
You said:
“The Supreme Court rules on constitutionality of laws. No one else.”
That implies you believe they are always right—because if it’s CONSTITUTIONAL, it MUST be right—correct? You dont believe in the right for states to nullify unconstitutional laws—so you MUST accept SC decisions–that means you must accept Dred Scott—therefore–racist.
The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 clearly state the case for nullification. In fact, the New Endlanders who were pissed at Jefferson for his trade embargo actually used Jefferson’s OWN WORDS in his resolutions for nullifying it. What did Jefferson do?? INVADE them?? NO. He accepted their opposition! Lincoln didn’t. Lincoln murdered 700,000 Americans because of his opposition.
“The Supreme Court’s rulings change over the years, with the times and the make-up of the Court. Sometimes they’re right, sometimes they’re wrong. Sometimes Congress is right, sometimes wrong.”
Oh but wait Bob…I quoted you above. You said they vote on constitutionality of laws. How could they possibly EVER be wrong if they are deciding on laws based on the CONSTITUTION? So, are you saying there is no checks and balances in cases where they are wrong?? You’re making my case for nullification for me…thanks.
The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions ALONE prove the state sovereignty issue, but I can give you many more examples. I have already given you some. The problem is, and where we disagree is, you are describing the way things ARE and Im describing they way things were written by the framers–how things should be.
Gene, I have no obsession with Lincoln. However, I do have an obsession with the truth, and when people like you and others portray him as a saint, I chime in and offer the truth. Lincoln is the first president that annihilated stgates rights. I contribute alot of problems today to him. The suspension of habeas corpus was no problem for me during the civil war–however Lincoln did not have the authority to do it. That’s Congress’s job, not the president’s.
Because of him and the government’s indoctrination in school text books, secession of states is seen as treasonous today, whereas between 1776 and 1861 it was not seen as treasonous at all. The New Englanders in the early 1800’s planned to secede and no one ever questioned their RIGHT to…but now when a state says they might secede, it’s seen as treasonous.
Lincoln waged war on civilians, shut down newspapers [NORTHERN ones!] and imprisoned their editors, he deported a member of congress, planned to colonize all blacks to Liberia and created the state of west virginia illegally [was not ratified]. Just what I’ve said is bad enough, but you don’t think it’s that bad. It’s only about as un American as you can get.
Bob and OS,
I loved the Life of Riley on TV. That is a great line from Riley, OS!
Bob,
Life of Riley was on the radio in the 1940s. Ran from about 1945 to 1951, then became a TV show in the ’50s.
OS,
“Life of Riley”? I didn’t hear that on the radio, far as I remember. Saw it on TV, with William Bendix. Somewhere in the 1950s.
Larry,
I see you wrote me some more love-notes while I was composing a demolition of everything you’ve said.
“Bob, are you a racist?? You must be since you agree that the Supreme Court is always right and always makes constitutional decisions—but since Taney obviously did not—you cant pick and choose what you agree to be good or bad. If they are the all-ruling power, you must accept Taney’s racist decision—-which makes you racist. I believe in the right of nullification. People have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws—period.
Why do you appear to be against slavery if you think Dred Scott was a non person—in essence supporting racism??
Answer please??”
Larry, you just told me I was a racist-that I “…must be since you agree that the Supreme Court is always right and always makes constitutional decisions…”
Please quote me, where I said that the “…Supreme Court is always right and always makes constitutional decisions…” I didn’t.
You may call me a racist if you wish. My racism, or lack of it, has no bearing on this conversation.
Did I say I was against slavery? Nope. You made it up, like everything else in your arguments. Whether I am pro-slavery, or anti-slavery, has no bearing on this conversation.
“So, you have a choice to make—–the SC is not always right which justifies nullification of unconstitutional laws, or they are always right—which brands you a racist. I can’t wait to see how you will attempt to weasel out of this.”
The incredibly clever, intricate, sophisticated trap that you set for me didn’t work. I didn’t step into it. I do not need to make some silly fantasy choice because you say that I do. I don’t need to weasel out of your trap, because I’m not in it.
The Supreme Court’s rulings change over the years, with the times and the make-up of the Court. Sometimes they’re right, sometimes they’re wrong. Sometimes Congress is right, sometimes wrong.
Sometime the Executive is right, sometimes wrong.
That’s life. Try to show some courage, and get over it.
Nullification of Federal law by state governments is not allowed in the Constitution. Analyze the sentence. It’s really not that hard to understand, for a man of your cleverness, complexity, and sophistication. I mean, you constructed that trap that I didn’t bother stepping into. You’re obviously the last of the great Medieval scholars.
raff, Gene and Bob,
Don’t confuse him with facts, his head is made up, as Riley used to say in the old radio program.
Gene,
Those facts are pesky little devils!
mespo,
Yeah. It’s hard not to love Paine. He was a very eloquent writer. “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” A lesson those currently (and recently) in Washington seem to have forgotten, ignored or perhaps misplaced.
Larry,
I’m not sure what started your twisted obsession with Lincoln. Perhaps your mother was scarred by a man in a stovepipe hat when she was pregnant with you. Maybe a man with just a beard touched you in a wrong way when you were a boy. However, Lincoln – while far from perfect – is not the linchpin for the problems currently facing this country. He didn’t make the Federal government “our master”. What he did – albeit by means I personally disagree with in some details (such as suspending habeas corpus and using force to silence critics) – was preserve the republic in the face of a manifestly illegal attempt to secede by the Southern states who did indeed attack the very political body to which they belonged.
Lincoln does indeed enjoy a rather cult like status among our former Presidents. Personally, I think he’s overrated and always have. He’s not even in my top five for favorite Presidents. However, that doesn’t detract from the fact that he preserved the union in circumstances many would have failed.
Is there a problem with the Federal government and its relation to citizens as defined by the Constitution? Without a doubt. But Lincoln has nothing to do with it. The situation of today created by the Patriot Act and items like H.R. 347 and the NDAA have done far more to damage democracy than Lincoln ever even thought about doing. This whole neoconservative and neoliberal dismantling of the Constitution, corruption of our political and legislative processes, and the steady encroachment of corporatism is a product of the 20th Century. This first gasp was the misstep of the failed Business Plot of 1932. The true bad guys – the Neos – didn’t get their bearings again to make a concerted bid for power until after WWII. Eisenhower saw the makings of the corporatist oligarchical fascist state in the making when he warned future generations against the MIC. Piece by piece, these people succeeded in removing your freedoms and liberty slowly over time. Sometimes in overt ways, sometimes by more subtle means, but they were playing the long game having had their short game disrupted in 1932. They really started to pick up steam in the mid to late 70’s as they positioned like minded people into key positions in government. And when Reagan took office? It was off to the races. Deregulation. Damage caps. Expanding corporate personality. Secret wars for private profits. Rolling back restrictions on campaign finance. And when 9/11 gave their bought and paid for villains Bush and Cheney the excuse they needed to step up the war against domestic democracy? They jumped in with both feet. If you want to look for causal connections to the dysfunctional disconnect between Washington and the citizens of this country, there is no need to go back and scapegoat Lincoln. Our downward spiral as a country away from democracy and into oligarchical fascism started in far more recent times and the villains still walk among us unpunished and unrepentant.
I’ve told you this before. Your obsession with demonizing Lincoln is practically textbook pathological, Larry. I’m no fan of his, but you’ve created a parallel fantasy reality where the CSA were the good guys and Lincoln is the Devil. Sorry! That’s not how that all really played out. The CSA started a war with the Federal government and the man in charge went overboard in some of his efforts to preserve the union and quell the rebellion. Both side have blood on their hands, but on the matter of secession, the South was legally wrong to go about it the way that they did and to do it for the reasons that they did. And don’t give me more of your lame bullshit about State’s Rights. There are some legitimate State’s Rights questions that existed before the Civil War and there are some that exist today, but that is not what the Civil War was fought over. It was a war about the South’s dependence upon slave labor and their desire to preserve that way of life and mode of business in a world where slavery was becoming less and less tolerated by civilizied Western countries and that tide of political change was coming to our shores via the most populated area of the country with the most contacts with Europe where the propriety and case for emancipation was first being made in the West: the Northern State and specifically New England. The Civil War was first and foremost about money. Money made on the backs of slaves. The Civil War wasn’t about State’s Rights in any valid manner. The net result was opening the process to where more people living here were rightly considered citizens and began the battle – still ongoing – to ensure civil rights were for everyone.
Bob, I cant wait to see how you either respond to my above post or completely ignore it. There’s no way around the racist stance you MUST take on Dred Scott if you believe that the Supreme Court is the all-ruling power and ALWAYS makes the constitutional decision. You either think they are always right, therefore you must be racist in the Dred Scott case…or you think they [at times] can be wrong—which solidifies my stance on nullification. There’s no middle ground.
In the case of Dred Scott, the SC DID make the wrong decision and it was NOT based on the Constitution since none of the framers said ALL blacks were non persons. So, you have a choice to make—–the SC is not always right which justifies nullification of unconstitutional laws, or they are always right—which brands you a racist. I can’t wait to see how you will attempt to weasel out of this.
Bob, are you a racist?? You must be since you agree that the Supreme Court is always right and always makes constitutional decisions—but since Taney obviously did not—you cant pick and choose what you agree to be good or bad. If they are the all-ruling power, you must accept Taney’s racist decision—-which makes you racist. I believe in the right of nullification. People have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws—period.
Why do you appear to be against slavery if you think Dred Scott was a non person—in essence supporting racism??
Answer please??
“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?”
Ahh you mean just like they did with the Dred Scott decision? That was 100% unconstitutional. Chief Justice Taney basically said blacks were NON persons, something even the framers did NOT say. They supported slavery but they NEVER said ALL blacks were NON persons. This was a great example of something that should have been nullified—-and 8 years later in 1865, it was—-but the people should have ignored it because Taney’s decision was rooted in racism, not the Constitution. So, because you support the fact that the Supreme Court is the all-ruling power [even if they make unconstitutional decisions], then you must agree with Taney that all blacks were NON persons, right???
Right???? So, you support racism Bob???
Also, Mike, let me add that the Union is not formed by COUNTIES, but as a union of STATES. Your pathetic analogy of county governments is just plain moronic [best word I could think of]. The framers did not create COUNTIES, but STATES. STATES form the Union—but that union is voluntary—not perpetual. 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.
Larry,
My pathetic reply was ridicule of the stupidity of you argument. every premise you’ve proposed has been demolished, but you were too ignorant to know it and too arrogant in your ignorance to understand that your argument lost.
“I guess Madison was just pulling our leg when he started the Constitution with the words “We the People of the United States” then.”
Gene, the federal govt is supposed to be the representation of the people—not the people themselves that are being represented. We “the people” are the ones being represented, we are the ones who, without our consent, the govt has no power—as Jefferson wrote. The federal govt is our servant, not our master—–but Lincoln was the one who brought all that to an end.
Larry – “but Lincoln was the one who brought all that to an end.” How is that possible with the people as the power? How can their representative misrepresent them?
Gene H:
Marcus Aurelius is a top 5’er, too — as you have pointed out. I’m partial to Thomas Paine (My country is the world, and my religion is to do good….My mind is my church) in 4th Place.
mespo,
I think next to Jefferson, Madison and Adams are tied as my penultimate favored writers of the lot.
Larry:
People makes states; states make republics; republics suppress the excesses of factions among the people; people supress excesses of states and republics.
Here’s the long — and more eloquent — version from the author himself:
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, — is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
~James Madison, Federalist 10