Libertarianism and the Civil War

Volokh Conspiracy ^ | 6 March 2012 | Ilya Somin

[donmeaker]

There are, generally speaking, three types of libertarian perspectives on the Civil War. Many libertarians actually support the war, some condemn it without defending the Confederacy, and some are actually pro-Confederate.

[GunRunner]

OK, but...

Amendment 13, adopted December 6, 1865

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Or is it your contention that the Confederates would have abolished slavery after they won the war? Nice try.

Pathetic neo-Confederate tripe.

[GilesB]

Your position is preposterous, demanding that we must support every act of a country or individual in order to support ANY act of same. Your position also disallows the legitimate and logical position that would acknowledge the right of an entity to act, while decrying the purpose for said action.

Let me try this again:
We believe in free speech. Most of us disagree with many of the ideas being promoted with this free speech - like forcing institutions to pay for contraception and abortion against their core principles.

Should we oppose free speech because of how some are using this freedom? If not, then it is philosophically consistent to support the right of southern states to secede, regardless of the reasons for said secession. Then you may have the debate about slavery and if it is incumbent upon a neighboring country to fight a war of liberty against a slave holding neighbor.

So - were I Lincoln, I would have allowed the secession - such being the right of free states. Then attacked the newly formed Confederacy in a war of liberation on behalf of the slaves. Once defeated, the CSA could petition for readmittance, and the USA could either accept or reject that petition.

This is fully consistent with a libertarian viewpoint IF that viewpoint allows an war of liberation against a neighboring country.

[GilesB]

Not exactly - the emancipation proclamation did as you describe. The result of the war itself was the end of slavery in the United States.

[GilesB]

See my #62 above regarding what I think Lincoln should have done.

I came to this conclusion while writing my response - I say that to establish that my previous question was an honest one, not intended as a gateway to interject my already formulated “great idea”.

[central_va]

The dissolution of the United States into multiple entities in competition with each other would have brought British and French, and later German, intervention into the Americas, as the Monroe Doctrine would have become moot.

Give me a break. The Confederate Army(P.A.C.S) of 1864 could have conquered all of Europe in 1864 if you gave them a sealift over there. THe Union could have done the same, only more quickly. The Europeans were in awe of Gen Lee and the ANV.

[central_va]

Nice to see your moniker again.

[Wallace T.]

The wartime Confederate and Union armies were the most powerful military force the world had seen since the fall of Napoleon. However, had the South won or the North acceded to secession, there would have been rapid demobilization, as America did after both world wars and the War for Independence and as the Union did post Appomattox. And who is to say that either the Confederacy or the Union would have remained intact? As Texas evolved from a cotton producing state to a cattle producing one, its interests would have diverged from the rest of the South. As I noted previously, the Union had several regions whose economic interests diverged sharply. Furthermore, its territory would have remained very large. Don't forget that the British and the French were on the Canadian and Mexican borders, respectively.

Only the preservation of the Union prevented the reassertion of European powers into the Western Hemisphere. The Germans, shut out of Africa and Asia by the British and French, would have found South America very tempting. Don't forget that hundreds of thousands of Germans emigrated to Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. The existence of two, and probably more, independent and rival nations on the current U.S. territory would have made the Americas a playground for the European powers. Perhaps they would not have re-colonized the former U.S., but they would have had wide latitude in Latin America.

[central_va]

The wartime Confederate and Union armies were the most powerful military force the world had seen since the fall of Napoleon.

Gen Lee and the ANV would have made mince meat out of Napoleons Army. (Even if you upgrade the Frenchy's rifled muskets to Springfields )

[x]

I see it this way: Before the war we were called “these united states”. The union was like a big brick wall where the states were the bricks and the FedGov was the mortar holding them together. Thanks to Lincoln, the country is now like a big wall made of mortar with 50 marbles embedded in it.

An awful lot has happened since 1789. The frontier was settled. People left farms for the city. Some didn't find jobs. Some didn't like what they got for their work.

Universal suffrage was introduced (depending on what people at any given time meant by "universal). A lot of immigrants arrived. We became the policeman of the world. We got rich. People started to feel entitled.

Laying the responsibility for how things are now on the Civil War or Abraham Lincoln seems a little oversimplified. Maybe you should consider those other changes as well.

[cuban leaf]

—Laying the responsibility for how things are now on the Civil War or Abraham Lincoln seems a little oversimplified. Maybe you should consider those other changes as well.—

I consider it the beginning, and a strong one it was.

[X Fretensis]

So in effect you are saying that the army of Generals Grant and Meade was better than Napoleon’s army. General Lee failed in trying to make mince meat out of them.

[central_va]

The Union Army and the Confederate Army were superior to all of the Armies of Europe at the time. The Military academies of Europe studied the Civil War and mostly General Lee and Sherman right up to today. I never thought of it but the two Armies combined could would have been totally unbeatable.

So yes, the Army of Potomac would also have made mince meat out of Napolean's Perfumed And feathered peacock Army.

[central_va]

I consider it the beginning, and a strong one it was.

Abe didn't execute the republic, but he built the scaffold.

[rockrr]

It’s only the 6th of March cva - isn’t that a little early to be spreading manure? ;-)

[donmeaker]

Actually, the good guys won, because the southern states, and some of the northern states, needed a federal counterbalance to state oppression. Secession and nullification were illegal incitements to insurrection, with no force of law, and no standing in law, with no process in law to correct error. The only way to correct error in pretended secession or nullification was by appeal to force.

Article 3 of the federal constitution provides a legal route for an oppressed state to appeal for redress in law. by accepting that article with the rest of the constitution the states gave up any pretense to nullification or secession.

[donmeaker]

Slavery was not on its way out. Rather, the first fruits of the industrial revolution created increased demand for its products. Slavers were desperate for new unspoiled land, hence their revolt against the Republican party that was pledged to (1) let slavery die where it was and (2) deny slavers the opportunity to poison any new states or territories, as had been done by the founders with the Northwest Ordinance.

[donmeaker]

Kids are taught about slaves with Egyptians, the Jews, the Greeks and the Egyptians. Jews celebrate their release from bondage every year. Jefferson and Madison went to war against the Barbary pirates because: they were capturing Americans, and making them slaves.

Wilberforce was a key factor in marshaling Christians against slavery. After his logical presentations no Christian could honestly support slavery. Washington freed his slaves. Lee freed his slaves with his father in law’s slaves.

Yet the pretended vice president of the pretended confederacy spoke in earnest that slavery was the cornerstone of the confederacy. He had missed his Sunday school lessons I guess.

[donmeaker]

Aristotle got almost everything wrong.

He never bothered to check anything. Per Aristotle, ants have 4 legs.

[donmeaker]

the souths prosperity was due to cotton, which was due to northern inventions such as the cotton gin.

Without that, the south would still be picking through the seeds by hand, and with productivity 1/100th that which existed with the cotton gin. Not worth making the special machines to spin card, or comb cotton. Not worth laying down railroads. Not worth sending more than one boat a year up the rivers.

[donmeaker]

Which was why the South opened fire on US forces at Ft. Sumter.