-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The resignation of Jack Hunter, the social-media director of Sen. Rand Paul (R, Kentucky), also known by the moniker “Southern Avenger,” has brought to the surface a not insignificant minority who identify themselves as libertarians. This minority defends the Old South, the Southern cause, and the Confederacy. These Neo-Confederate libertarians claim to be anti-slavery and their arguments are a case study in cognitive dissonance.
Timothy Sandefur (pdf) gives lie to any notion that states have a “right” to unilateral secession:
Since the Constitution is a law binding the People, and not a league of states, states have no authority to intervene between the people and the national government. If the people of a state wish to leave the union, they may not do so unilaterally, but must obtain the agreement of their fellow citizens—or they must rebel in a legitimate act of revolution.
Sandefur also notes that the Declaration of Independence imposes harsh restrictions on those seeking a legitimate act of rebellion. The right to throw off a government can only be exercised after “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism.” The Confederacy was formed to violate rights, especially the right to self-ownership, not secure them.
The Confederate states were motivated to secede by the desire to maintain slavery. In their Declarations of Causes, four southern states, South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Mississippi, make clear that abolition of slavery was their primary reason for secession. The Confederate Constitution stated: “No law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” One cannot rationally justify Confederate secession on morals grounds while ignoring the great evil that such a secession intended to preserve.
In the postbellum South racial dominance was practiced unashamedly. “State’s Rights” became the rallying cry whenever the Federal Government insisted on adherence to the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The right of association and property owner’s rights were a common smokescreen used to defend Jim Crow, southern apartheid, laws. Today, “voter fraud” allows politicians cover when African-American voters are disenfranchised. The perversion of these concepts to scam voters into supporting the elite white power structure should not be tolerated.
The right to have your children attend a neighbor school was invented when the Supreme Court found segregated schools unconstitutional and busing was the solution. Today, taxpayer funding of private academies through voucher programs seeks to circumvent the 14th Amendment restrictions.
One cannot rationally support the Confederacy while condemning slavery. The raison d’être for the Confederacy was slavery. If one condemns slavery, then one condemns those who practiced it and sought to preserve it. One cannot simultaneously support the Southern state’s right to secede from the Union while supporting the denial that right to the individuals in those states. One cannot endorse the claim that secession was supported by a majority of the population when 40% of that population is not allowed to participate in the decision.
H/T: Ilya Somin, Jacob Levy, Jonathan Blanks, Jason Kuznicki, Randy Barnett, Conor Friedersdorf, Corey Robin, Massimo Pigliucci.
“Perhaps you are not aware that the Constitution was ratified not by the various State legislatures or by their Governors or by any of their various ministers but by the votes of the people then entitled to vote in each State.”
Yes and the right to leave the union was included in each of the state constitutions.
Also I was right. You didnt show me ONE quote from Madison about his supposed opposition to decentralization. AND you were wrong on inflation.
Larry
“where did you come from anyway??? Out of Nal’s ass??”
Okay. Enough of that. I suggest you talk to yourself from here on in.
pbh
Larry,
“Find me in the CONSTITUTION where it says secession is illegal…or find me even the concept saying that.”
Larry, Larry, Larry.
Let us begin with “We, the People,”
Perhaps you are not aware that the Constitution was ratified not by the various State legislatures or by their Governors or by any of their various ministers but by the votes of the people then entitled to vote in each State. And that it took a 75% majority of those states to ratify the Constitution.
This is the same standard that applies for Constitutional amendments, 75% of the eligible. ratifying States as a result of the votes of the people in those States have to ratify any amendment. (See Article V, U.S. Constitution.)
Which is to say that dissolution of the Constitution and the United States of America would take a 75% approval, currently 38 of the 50 States, to take effect.
The fact that you do not appear to know this basic fact undercuts most of your entire line of argument. Indeed, you appear to be urinating into the winds of history.
pbh
pbh—where did you come from anyway??? Out of Nal’s ass??
“And I strongly disagree with Jefferson on just about everything.”
And WHO’S the anti-American and traitor here??? This explains our entire disagreement. You are anti-American and I support the founding American principles. Even Hamilton was for SECESSION, and he would have been on Lincoln’s side on everything else (well, except for invading states).
Do you realize that Lincoln committed treason according to the Constitution?? By the way, do you even BELIEVE in the Constitution??
Read article 3 section 3. Treason is: Levying war against the states—–Lincoln did that.
“Dear fellow, it was Madison who contacted Hamilton in reaction to the total failure of the first Confederate Government in the hope that the two of them could bring sufficient energy to the creation of a true national government. Their interests diverged after ratification, but Jefferson, Madison and Monroe in turn, all Virginians devoted to State’s Rights, soon discovered that when they had control of the Federal government it wasn’t such a bad thing,”
I asked for a QUOTE from Madison—not your babblings.
“Okay. I buy a house in 1994 for $200k. In 2013 that same house is worth $1.5 mil. Meanwhile, my carrying costs are still what they were in 1994. Works for me.”
Ha ha ha ha ha. That’s not what INFLATION is. That’s market value increasing! There could be a dozen reasons why market value makes a house increase in value—and NONE of them would be inflation. Are you like 11 years old??
from wikipedia:
“Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether slave or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States.”
This is the VERY reason why Lincoln stated in his first inaugural:
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
So, basically Lincoln is ADMITTING Vallandigham was CORRECT—-but deported him anyway. Dictators and tyrants do not take criticism very well. Don’t you know that??
Larry
pbh: “Secession is a delusion.”
“Tell Thomas Jefferson that. He strongly disagrees with you.”
And I strongly disagree with Jefferson on just about everything.
“you MUST give me quotes from Madison that he was AGAINST decentralization of government.”
Dear fellow, it was Madison who contacted Hamilton in reaction to the total failure of the first Confederate Government in the hope that the two of them could bring sufficient energy to the creation of a true national government. Their interests diverged after ratification, but Jefferson, Madison and Monroe in turn, all Virginians devoted to State’s Rights, soon discovered that when they had control of the Federal government it wasn’t such a bad thing,
“give me ONE example of inflation being GOOD.”
Okay. I buy a house in 1994 for $200k. In 2013 that same house is worth $1.5 mil. Meanwhile, my carrying costs are still what they were in 1994. Works for me.
pbh
I knew you’d ignore the things I said you’d ignore. So I will post again.
LOL, oh you MUST give me quotes from Madison that he was AGAINST decentralization of government. I KNOW you will ignore this.
LOL, give me ONE example of inflation being GOOD. Again, you will IGNORE this.
“Vallandigham was a vigorous supporter of constitutional states’ rights.”
So was Thomas Jefferson. Whats your point???
“He believed the federal government had no power to regulate a legal institution, which slavery then was.”
The Dred Scott decision made that happen buddy! The ruling by the Supreme Court said the government could NOT regulate slavery in the federal territories! This ruling happened FOUR years before the civil war began. Again, Vallandigham was right!
“He also believed the states had a right to secede and that the Confederacy could not constitutionally be conquered militarily.”
He’s right. Find me in the CONSTITUTION where it says secession is illegal…or find me even the concept saying that. This will be ignored.
Larry
“what secrets were the NORTH giving to the SOUTH, that their newspapers were shut down and all telegraph communication had to shut down??”
Troop movements, numbers and armaments, attack strategies and tactics, stuff like that.
I guess you think your enemy should have all that information before engaging in battle with you. That’s why I would not want you defending my house.
pbh
Larry,
“Vallandigham was an OHIO congressman, who was loyal to the UNION. Where on EARTH do you get that Vallandigham was loyal to the SOUTH??? WHERE??”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham
“Vallandigham was a vigorous supporter of constitutional states’ rights. He believed the federal government had no power to regulate a legal institution, which slavery then was. He also believed the states had a right to secede and that the Confederacy could not constitutionally be conquered militarily.”
The fact that he was from Ohio does not impress me. I don’t think it did him any harm to take a vacation in Florida.
You do realize that every time you go all caps you appear a tad irrational?
pbh
” I really do not intend to reply to any of your replies. You obviously did not generate this nonsense, so I hardly imagine that you can defend it.”
LOL…you cant imagine I could defend it, but you wont reply to my replies???? That makes NO sense. You fit right in with the other douchebags here.
The fact that you thought Vallandigham was from the SOUTH takes the cake. His loyalties weren’t even there!!! He was from the Union and LOYAL to the UNION.
Are you suggesting there is NO such thing as being pro-Union and anti-Lincoln at the same time????
Are you REALLY suggesting this????? There is MOUNTAINS of evidence that indicate otherwise, so answer this question VERY VERY carefully.
Oh that’s right, you’re too chicken s–t to reply to my replies. LOL
“61. Effectively killing secession as a threat, thus encouraging the rise of our modern federal monolith.” Ibid. Plus, Secession is a delusion.
Tell Thomas Jefferson that. He strongly disagrees with you.
“Plus, the whole point to the Constitution was eliminate the “decentralized confederation” that had pre-existed it. Have you read the Federalist Papers or Madison’s Notes?”
LOL, oh you MUST give me quotes from Madison that he was AGAINST decentralization of government. I KNOW you will ignore this.
“And, finally, we get to the issue of who is an economic illiterate. F/Y/I, inflation in itself is not “inherently” a bad thing. The rate of inflation can be, in certain circumstances. (IN certain circumstances WHAT??? Did you miss something here??? LOL) That said, if you want to stuff your mattress with Krugerrands and precious gems, be my guest.”
LOL, give me ONE example of inflation being GOOD. Again, you will IGNORE this.
“Censoring all telegraph communication.” I cannot imagine putting you in charge of defending the Union. It would amount to complete capitulation. Censorship in war time is a given. Loose Lips and all that.”
It was never a declared war. Lincoln called it a “rebellion”. Had it been a war, some things Lincoln did would have been deemed constitutional.
Besides, what secrets were the NORTH giving to the SOUTH, that their newspapers were shut down and all telegraph communication had to shut down??
Answer: NONE. Lincoln did it because everything he shut down was CRITICIZING HIM. Period!!
pbh51
I actually laughed out loud at some of these explanations.
“35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.” That is a rather broad brush. Have you personally reviewed each of these cases? In any event, Ibid.”
This is akin to saying that because I didnt review each holocaust victims case, it didn’t exist and they never died. Are you Nal’s brother?
“36. Tolerating their subjection to inhumane conditions in prison.” You seem to think that prisons were generally humane in this period except for those detained by Lincoln’s order. I kinda doubt it.”
No, the point was not whether the treatment should have been better/worse—it’s what they were in prison FOR——-CRITICIZING Lincoln. Yep, we cant do that in a FREE country!
“37. Systematically attacking Northern newspapers and their employees (also shutting down the newspapers), including by imprisonment.” Sherman would have shot them, so Lincoln’s behavior seems mild in comparison.”
So, the logic here is: another person would have done WORSE, therefore Lincoln’s actions weren’t so bad. You ARE Nal’s brother!
““38. Deporting his chief political enemy in the North, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio.” Deported to the South that he actively supported. Burnside would have shot him dead.”
Vallandigham was a LOYAL UNIONIST and from OHIO…NOT the SOUTH—douchebag.
Again, the “another person would have done worse” twisted logic. The entire point was, he was DEPORTED—-and you have ZERO problem with that. Know what his “crime” was??? …..Vallandigham made a speech in response to Lincoln’s state of the Union address in which he criticized Lincoln for his unconstitutional usurpation of power. The Democrats in Ohio (a loyal UNION state) were so outraged that they nominated Vallandigham for the office of governor even though he had been deported. Vallandigham was devoted to the Union and the Constitution, which is WHY he was critical of Lincoln. He made the point that Congress ALONE has the power to borrow money, and that Lincoln had usurped that power.
Vallandigham criticized Lincoln’s first inaugural address, condemned the Lincoln administration for its “persistent infractions of the Constitution, its high-minded usurpations of power [which] formed any part of a deliberate conspiracy to overthrow the prsent form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead”.
Vallandigham criticized Lincoln sending 75,000 troops to invade the South, which was never approved by Congress. The conflict was never declared a war but was called a “rebellion”. Lincoln never recognized the Confederate government as legitimate, because if he had, he would have had to admit that secession was legitimate. If it was officially declared a war, then the blockade of southern ports would have been constitutional. But it was never declared a war, therefore the blockade of ports was just another violation of the Constitution that the war was supposedly fought to protect.
Vallandigham was an OHIO congressman, who was loyal to the UNION. Where on EARTH do you get that Vallandigham was loyal to the SOUTH??? WHERE??
I am still waiting with baited breath to find out exactly what Larry’s point is. What do you expect to accomplish here, sport? Whatever it is, it does not seem to be working out too well for you thus far.
Larry,
God forbid you should accuse me of abandoning the field in the middle of the joust:
“35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.” That is a rather broad brush. Have you personally reviewed each of these cases? In any event, Ibid.
“36. Tolerating their subjection to inhumane conditions in prison.” You seem to think that prisons were generally humane in this period except for those detained by Lincoln’s order. I kinda doubt it.
“37. Systematically attacking Northern newspapers and their employees (also shutting down the newspapers), including by imprisonment.” Sherman would have shot them, so Lincoln’s behavior seems mild in comparison.
“38. Deporting his chief political enemy in the North, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio.” Deported to the South that he actively supported. Burnside would have shot him dead.
“39. Confiscating private property and firearms.” See answers to # 32., 33., & 34.
“40. Ignoring the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.” Hardly. Secession is not a “right” granted to the States and the People do not have the “right” to nullify laws legally passed by Congress.
“41. Tolerating the arrest of ministers who refused to pray for Lincoln.” This one is really obscure. You would do well to provide some citations for these charges, but I already know you are just cutting and pasting crap you have not researched.
“42. Arresting several duly elected members of the Maryland Legislature along with the mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman Henry May.” Maryland was a hotbed of seccessionist activity. Chief among the sympathizers was May who delivered various speeches calling for Southern recognition and against the arming of former slaves. After the War, he was re-elected, so I guess giving him a “time-out” didn’t hurt him much.
“43. Placing Kansas and Kentucky under martial law.” Ever hear of Bleeding Kansas? This was part of the South’s strategy to impose slavery on the territories. Again, for pity’s sake, read the Cooper Union speech.
“44. Supporting a law that indemnified public officials for unlawful acts.” References needed Please. I have a strong suspicion that what you (or the actual author of your list) consider “unlawful” falls somewhere between supressing an illegal rebellion and gunning down traitors to the Union.
“45. Laying the groundwork for the establishment of conscription and income taxation as permanent institutions.” See my response to #s 6., 8. and 26. above.
“46. Interfering with and rigging elections in Maryland and elsewhere in the North.” I suppose this refers back to May’s arrest and the disqualification of other Secessionists. Tough nuggies.
“47. Censoring all telegraph communication.” I cannot imagine putting you in charge of defending the Union. It would amount to complete capitulation. Censorship in war time is a given. Loose Lips and all that.
“48. Preventing opposition newspapers from being delivered by the post office.” Ibid.
“49. Illegally creating the state of West Virginia out of the “indestructible” state of Virginia.” Yeah, that hasn’t worked out too well for WV. They probably would like to have a bite of that VA tax base. Am I going to discover that you also have a bee in the bonnet about Appomattox?
“50. Tolerating or supporting mistreatment of citizens in conquered territory.” I believe it was General Burnside who said something to the effect that insofar as they do not consider themselves citizens of the United States, they will have to suffer the infelicities of their condition.
“51. Taxing those citizens without their consent.” You mean they took the possessions of the secessionist traitors? Some of which were their very slaves? Who they then armed and told to shoot their former masters? Yikes. War is hard core.
“52. Executing those who refused to take a loyalty oath.” Now this is pure propaganda. I defy you to present a list of individuals so executed. Lincoln orginally proposed that merely 10% of an individual State’s population would have to swear a Loyalty Oath in order to re-enter the Union. Two year later, the Republican Congress upped this to 50% (and I think they were right to do so, given the extent of the war). By 1865, Lincoln was Dead. So, how many people did he have shot because they wouldn’t take a Loyalty oath when only 5 out of 10 had to do it anyway and ALL of the surviving Confederate Officers were pardoned outright?
“53.Closing churches and arresting ministers.” Yeah, yeah. This is so boring.
“54. Burning and plundering Southern cites.” Oh, not so boring. We have a saying in my neck of the woods, “You want a War? I’ll give you a War. I got your War right here.”
“55. Quartering troops in private homes unlawfully.” See the Burnside attribution in # 50 above.
“56. Establishing precedents for centralized powers and suppression of liberties that continue to be cited today.” See my response to #s 6., 8., 26. & 45. above.
“57. Allowing an unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.” I am not exactly a fan of the Indian Wars, but that stuff started long before Lincoln became President and continued long after. With regard to this particular uprising, the evidence and accusations are all over the map. There is, however, little doubt that there was armed conflict between the Sioux and immigrant whites in Minnesota and that people died on both sides. To blame all of this on Lincoln is the height of disingenuousness.
“58. Engineering a constitutional revolution through military force which destroyed state sovereignty and replaced it with rule by the Supreme Court (and the United States Army).” Ibid # 56, & etc.
“59. Laying the groundwork for the imperialist and militarist campaigns of the future as well as the welfare/warfare state.” Ibid.
“60. Creating the dangerous precedent of establishing a strong consolidated state out of a decentralized confederation.” Ibid. (This is too easy.) Plus, the whole point to the Constitution was eliminate the “decentralized confederation” that had pre-existed it. Have you read the Federalist Papers or Madison’s Notes?
“61. Effectively killing secession as a threat, thus encouraging the rise of our modern federal monolith.” Ibid. Plus, Secession is a delusion.
“62. Waging war on civilians by bombing, destruction of homes, and confiscation of food and farm equipment.” Yeah, you do tend to repeat. Ibid. #s 32., 33., 34., & 39.
“63. Tolerating an atmosphere which led to large numbers of rapes against Southern women, including slaves.” As for raping slaves, I believe Thomas Jefferson knew something about that. If Union soldiers also did this as well as attacking free people, however that they might be sworn enemies, it is regretable. Good thing the War ended when it did.
“64. Using civilians as hostages.” Ibid # 62.
“65. Promoting a general because of his willingness to use his troops as cannon fodder.” Is this supposed to be a refernce to Grant? I actually don’t recall any reference or account of Grant or any other Union general stuffing his cannons with his own soldiers. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
“66. Creating the federal tax bureaucracy and various taxes that are still with us.” Blah, blah, blah. Ibid all over the place.
“67. Supporting government subsidies of the railroads leading to corruption and inefficiency.” I sense that your ghost writer is running out of steam (pun intended). Anyway, see #s 7. & 9. above
“68. Supporting a nationalized paper currency which is inherently inflationary.” And, finally, we get to the issue of who is an economic illiterate. F/Y/I, inflation in itself is not “inherently” a bad thing. The rate of inflation can be, in certain circumstances. That said, if you want to stuff your mattress with Krugerrands and precious gems, be my guest.
OK. So. There are your answers. Other than responses to my specific requests for the source of your source’s more esoteric and unsubstantiated claims, I really do not intend to reply to any of your replies. You obviously did not generate this nonsense, so I hardly imagine that you can defend it. But, I would really appreciate it if you would at least read the Cooper Union speech. It is really, really special.
pbh
Larry,
Your act is getting very old.
Larry:
That’s a lie.
That’s a lie.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. HEAR THIS. THE VERY MAN WHO WROTE AN ARTICLE BASHING LIBERTARIANS FOR SUPPORTING SLAVERY (WHEN HE HAS NO PROOF OF THIS) JUST STATED THAT LINCOLN IS JUSTIFIED IN SUPPORTING SLAVERY IF IT WOULD TO SAVE THE UNION.
DESPITE the fact that Lincoln DENIED this, and I ALREADY posted this quote:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”