Great post.
I have to say that this entire debate has been fascinating me. It is very similar to the typical libertarian vs. conservative debate in many ways.
I would place those defending the confederate democrats as the libertarians and those defending the union republicans as the conservatives.
Those arguing for secession rights claim to not be arguing for democracy but claim instead that they stand for freedom but I do not see it that way at all. The confederate democrats were arguing for ‘mob rules’ over the ‘rule of law’. They seem to think that it is a right to overthrow the Constitution by simply gaining a majority in a state. (Yet it was already agreed that it took ¾ of the states to amend the Constitution) They even argue that this state right gave them the right to enslave human beings.
Arguments like this are typical to libertarians. They think that the definition of freedom includes the right to trample upon the rights of others through backhanded moral methods when they can gain mob rules in a state. They preach for their right to make legal prostitution, drug addiction, and a host of other activity to enslave human beings.
The successors of the confederate democrats were the progressive democrats. The common link between these two was the KKK. But it also known that libertarians have no problem marching hand in hand with the Marxist progressive democrats, as they have done since they officially founded the libertarian party in the early 70’s. Libertarians and progressive Marxists may not be completely aligned in ideology but morally they are two peas in pod.
So it is no surprise to me that it is a libertarian argument that defends the confederacy and slavery still today.
Excellent perspective!
My efforts to suggest that the south might have had the moral authority in their quest had they sought secession legally are typically met with a “We don’t have to if we feeeeeeeeel that we are in the right to secede at any time and for any reason”.
Sound familiar?