Dr. Palmer-
I'm no Southern partisan, but how would you respond to people who (honestly) criticize slavery but say that Lincoln overstepped his bounds in trying to halt secession (a claim which, while I'm not totally sure I agree with it, am a little sympathetic to; many libertarians, Rockwellian Confederates or not, would probably agree that Lincoln was not, to put it mildly, a great President)?

Adam,

I think that our sentiments are very similar, if not the same. I believe that the Civil War ("War Between the States," "Late Unpleasantness," or whatever the Rockwellites call it) was a horror and that many institutions inimical to liberty and justice had their start in the U.S. during that war and its aftermath. At the same time I have zero sympathy with the Confederacy, which was explicitly set up to perpetuate the institution of chattel slavery. That means that I have zero sympathy with the contemporary champions of the Confederate States of America. What they champion -- what they yearn for -- was evil. No doubt that makes me a "PCneocon" in their book. I think it just makes me a straightforward libertarian.

Tom, as so often is the case, makes a critical distinction when he says:

" I believe that the Civil War ... was a horror and that many institutions inimical to liberty and justice had their start in the U.S. during that war and its aftermath. At the same time I have zero sympathy with the Confederacy, which was explicitly set up to perpetuate the institution of chattel slavery. That means that I have zero sympathy with the contemporary champions of the Confederate States of America."

Tom, you're much more aware of (follow closely) the Rockwellian literature than I, but I'm sure you'd distinguish "champion of secession" from "champions of the Confederate States of America." I take it Rockwell's gang actually defends the CSA as opposed to defending their right to secede.

There's also the issue of what it means to "defend" a state: there's a difference between saying "State A is a positive good" and saying "State A is better than State B". Given CSA's defense of chattel slavery, it would not be easy to defend the proposition it was nonetheless better than Lincoln's union, or even the resultant Leviathan, but it would at least be a less bizarre claim than saying "the CSA was a positively good state, the best example of libertarianism in action history provides," or whatever (as my college-age neice likes to end things).

Finally, one could--if one enjoys engaging in counterfactual history prognostications--positively hate the CSA AND the institution of chattel slavery and nonetheless believe liberty would have been better served had the CSA won. That would have negated several anti-liberty principles established by the preservation of the Union while at the same time chattel slavery was a dying institution throughout the rest of the western world, dying in most places without the violence seen during the Civil War. As you know, several Northern abolitionists also wanted secession to succeed.

When I first heard about Wood's book, I was happy to hear that a book discussing the truth about the New Deal and various other myths was gaining so much popularity and attention. This is just really depressing now. Ugh.

Cathy Young's review is terrible. She provides very little in the way of substantial criticism, mostly just citing Woods' unorthodox opinions, as if mentioning them proves them wrong. The only thing I found faintly scandalous was Woods' apparent boosterism for "friends of order and regulated freedom", but this is a quote from 8 years ago when, by Woods' own admission, he was less libertarian; moreover, it attacks the messenger rather than the message.

I don't know whether Young is a neocon or not, but, considering that this is the same woman who responded to the 9/11 attacks with "A Free Society is Not a Suicide Pact", one could be excused for mistaking her for one. The people at Reason Magazine should be ashamed of their association with her.

LRC has in fact published at least one piece that slams the CSA: http://tinyurl.com/3u3vw

As far as Eric Muller goes, he seems like a run-of-the-mill authoritarian type. I mean, if he thinks *secession* is beyond the pale, he'd probably drop dead of outrage if he read Spooner.

I share Nacim's disappointment. But for a rather sound (and judicious) treatment of the Great Depression and how the New Deal prolonged it, see Jim Powell's "FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression" at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761501657/qid=1109045824/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-2799063-7351313 .

Ross asks some hard questions, and unsurprisingly...it's hard to know how one would answer. But here are some thoughts.

1. No one has a right to secede from another political unit for the purpose of holding others as slaves. The only way one can say that "the people" of South Carolina or Georgia decided to secede is if one doesn't consider black people to be people. The legislatures of the northern states might have legitimately decided to secede from the South or to stop enforcing runaway slave laws. But the situation is not symmetrical with regard to the southern states, which could not justifiably secede in order to keep people in chains. The argument that somehow the secession would have hastened the demise of slavery is a fallback for the Confederate apologists, who typically start by deliberately distorting the historical record and claiming that slavery had nothing to do with secession and that secession was "really" about tariffs. One can be quite sure that the distressingly bizarre Confederate Revivalist culture being grown in Lew Rockwell's ideological petri dish is not especially nuanced in that regard, but is nostalgic about the Confederacy per se, peculiar institution and all.

2. As to the counterfactuals, it's hard to know what would have been the long run results of a successful secession by the CSA. I do know that people would have been picking cotton under the lash for a lot longer. And it also seems likely that there would have been a military confrontation between the Union and an expansionist Confederacy that was seeking to expand slavery. Probably the best outcome, although one that would have been less just than the least likely outcome (which is that the slaves would have been released without bloodshed and compensated by the slaveholders for their loss of liberty and wealth), would have been a compensated emancipation, as occurred in some other parts of the new world. That would have been distasteful (as Spooner noted, it was the slaves who should have been compensated, not their masters) and would have entailed some injustice to taxpayers, but it would probably have been far less unjust than any of the other options. An increase in one's tax burden from ten percent to twenty percent for a year is surely not as unjust as bearing a one hundred percent tax burden for life.

As to Mr. Kerner's complaint about the book, Ms. Young does mention some errors in it, such as the remark about no mass graves in Kosovo. Has Mr. Woods in fact repudiated or in any way distanced himself from the rather odious statements about "white Christian Southerners"? It seems a reasonable question; apparently, Ms. Young went to the trouble to contact him by email, but "Woods has complained about being judged on his old writings; yet, in an e-mail exchange, he would not repudiate any of his past statements or his association with the League of the South." Mr. Kerner complains that Ms. Young "attacks the messenger rather than the message," but it seems that the reason that some are happy with the book is simply the message, but not the arguments or the evidence. And so Mr. Kerner has responded, not by rebutting Ms. Young's points, but by bringing up Ms. Young's article after 9/11 suggesting that there may be a trade off between protection of life and protection of liberty (or that some liberties might be traded off to defend those that remain). Ms. Young's essay is available here: http://reason.com/cy/cy092401.shtml . I don't share her evaluation, for several reasons, among them because I think that most of the estimates of the risks of terrorist attacks are greatly exaggerated, with one exception, that of attack with a nuclear warhead, against which more preventive efforts should be directed. I don't think that that essay should provide much reason why "The people at Reason Magazine should be ashamed of their association with her." On the other hand, the people who write for lewrockwell.com might think about their having been associated by Rockwell with a sleazy and windy bag of hatred and racism such as the late Sam Francis, of one of the few groups more odious than the League of the South, the Council of Conservative Citizens, widely known as the public face of the KKK in the South.

Mr. Lopez is right that Mr. Muller and I would probably not see eye to eye on many issues. But he is raising some good questions, whether he and I would agree or not.

Sam Francis is not even buried yet (his funeral is this weekend.) Out of respect for his friends and family and just common human decency, I think it may be tasteful to wait more than a week after someone dies before you slander them.

Perhaps Mr. Francis should have thought of how he would be remembered before devoting his life to peddling segregationist hatefulness. Read what the man wrote (yes, like anyone, he occasionally managed to say something interesting, mixed in with the racism and the evil). He might even have thought of that before actually slandering others -- rather than pointing out what they had admitted believing -- as when he wrote, for example, that advocates of immigration liberalization ["the Open Borders lobby"], "What the Open Borders really cares about is immigration pure and simple -- to bring in cheap labor, drive down the wages of American workers, and import a new electorate that can be manipulated into supporting its candidates." What a disgraceful windbag.

You can find out about his own quite openly admitted views at the CoCC web site at http://www.cofcc.org/ , where you'll find a notice of his death (remembered as "editor-in-chief for the Citizen Informer newspaper and a member of the national board of directors for the Council of Conservative Citizens"). There, on the web site of the group he advanced, you'll find descriptions of "the brutal beating of a white man by a hulking black man," "rampant cannibalism" in Africa, and other evidence that they are not -- not at all! -- racists. The attempt to deny that he was a racist and a segregationist who peddled hatred of people of other races is an attempt to deny the obvious.

As the CoCC notes of Francis, "He will be missed by millions of American Conservatives."* He won't be missed by me. I'm with H. L. Mencken on this; read his obituary of William Jennings Bryan.**

*(I know many self-described conservatives who would be decidedly unhappy to be lumped in with the racist knuckle draggers at the CoCC, which, according to their "FAQ on Race" "does indeed speak out for white European-Americans, their civilization, faith and form of government." I was not aware that "white people" had "a form of government," since there have been so many under which "white Europeans" have lived.)
**Naturally, saying that I won't miss someone is not at all the same as wishing for that person's death. I reserve that for only a small number of actual criminals, certainly not for people who merely advocated criminality and who attempted to deny the dignity of their fellow human beings.

Tom Palmer is correct that Young does cite one apparent factual error in Woods 246-page book (right before charitably adding "The Politically Incorrect Guide isn't always incorrect"). While I am no expert on the deaths in Kosovo, an obvious reason that Woods might have failed to mention the 4,000 graves Young cites, would be that he considers his source -- a forensic surgeon who searched for graces -- to be more credible than whatever her source is. If it, in fact, is an error, it seems like a fairly minor one, because the gist of that sentence in the book is to show that pre-war estimates of 100,000 to 400,000 Kosovar Albanians slaughtered were incorrect, which they surely were. 4,000 graves don't change that.

Among the other points made by Young that I am expected to rebut are that Woods at one point "is in agreement with most left-wing historians" (horrors!) and: "don't expect a book that celebrates American heroes and American accomplishments as an antidote to hand-wringing over the sins of dead white males." Celebrating American heroes and American accomplishments? Is that really supposed to be the goal of libertarian history nowadays? In fact, my major complaint about Woods' book is that he didn't lay into the U.S. (or, specifically, its government) hard enough about, for instance, Vietnam.

My purpose in bringing up Cathy Young's older essay was primarily to discredit her current article but to rebut Mr. Palmer's snide dismissal of Woods' reference to her as a neocon (Woods didn't really say that she is one, although he certainly implied that she has something to do with them). Woods does not say, either, that one should ignore Cathy Young's review because she is a neocon. He says that we should ignore it because it is a bad article, which it is.

After reading the position paper on race by Michael Hill, the head of the League of the South, it does appear to have strong overtones of white nationalism, particularly in the lines quoted by Ms. Young. Hill also notes in the opening lines of that essay that race is not intended to be the principal issue of the League. As to whether Woods has "repudiated or in any way distanced himself" from Hill's comments: no to the former, yes to the latter. Woods writes on the LRC blog: "I have played no day-to-day role in the organization and I am responsible neither for the comments of any other member nor for the politically incorrect statements I am told can be found on the League's site."

For what it's worth, if I were Lew Rockwell, I would indeed be ashamed to be associated with a few of the people he associates with. Not that it makes Rockwell a bad guy (I've got nothing against the Reason people, either), he just has some different ideas than I do about what kind of writing to support. Even so, frankly, I think it's better to support obviously eccentric margin-crawlers like Gary North than to support mainstream-apologist Boston-Globe-hatchet-job-author/liberventionists like Cathy Young. That's a highly subjective judgment, though.

I did not mean to suggest that people who simply write for Reason Magazine (such as Palmer himself or, say, Gene Callahan) have any need to feel bad about their tenuous connection to Cathy Young.

Let me be the one to translate what Mr. Kerner is saying for the unwashed masses. Neocon = "Party Enemy."

It is stinking Leninism 101 folks. The same monkey poop tossed about by the Rothbardians which has been smelling up the libertarian scene for years. Ms. Young disagrees with the Rockwellian Party, so she is branded an "Party Enemy" aka a "Neocon."

Gary North advocates stoning homosexuals to death, but since he barfs up the Rockwellian Vanguard's Party line, he is declared "clean" as a "real libertarian."

See how the cult works? Well if disagreeing with Rockwell and his cronies groupthink makes me a "neocon" - call me a proud "neocon."

Translation of "Neocon":

The Rothbardians (such as Justin) are Leninists. Like all Leninists, their strategy is political domination of their Party. The term "neocon" means "Party Enemy."

Like all Leninists, they believe in alliances with other groups to infiltrate and control them politically (e.g. anti-war groups, terrorists and the KKK).

To disagree with the Vanguard is to be purged. To be purged is to be labeled a "neocon."

But tome of us are starting to wear the label "neocon" proudly, even if we hate Bill Kristol and everything he stands for. Why? Because it is starting to mean "anti-rothbardian"... which we are proud to be.

Liberty magazine has a rave review of the Woods book, making it sound quite libertarian. I was pleasantly surprised and wondered if I should read the book, or invite the author to speak. Then I picked up the book in a bookstore, and the first thing I saw was the defense of the Confederacy. He seems to recite all the standard arguments of the paleos: The Civil War wasn't about slavery. (Yeah, right.) The Confederacy was exercising the right of self-determination. (With, as usual, absolutely no mention of the black people -- maybe I should emphasize that: black PEOPLE -- who lived in the South. He didn't bother to mention that 49.6 percent of the people who lived in the first six seceding states were black. Does he think their state legislatures were acting on the people's behalf when they voted to secede?)

It's too bad -- I'm always glad to discover a good new author, and I'm sorry I was misled on this one.

A neato picture of Mr. Woods:

http://www.isthatlegal.org/tomwoods.jpg

He seems to be missing his hood.

Woods is incorrect, I think, to claim that many secessionist leaders were not motivated primarily by a desire to keep slavery intact. The original sources pretty clearly indicate that slavery was, in their minds, the principal reason for secession. But let's keep in mind that the vast majority of white southerners at this time -- including those that made up the majority of the Confederate armies -- were not slaveholders. I don't hold any illusions that these men were enlightened on racial matters -- but it does seem at least plausible that they were motivated to fight for some larger reason than pure economic gain. Also, it seems pretty clear that many of the actions Lincoln took were (a) in flagrant violation of the law (consider the way the citizens of Maryland and other border states were treated when they considered seceding); (b) damaging to individual liberty in the long run. The war, it is true, nominally freed blacks -- who, of course, continued to be subject to brutal treatment in the South for nearly a century more. But this came at a very high cost.

A libertarian, it seems to me, could be opposed to both much of the culture and legal system of the antebellum South (especially, of course, the evil of chattel slavery), while at the same time opposed to Lincoln's efforts to forcibly keep the South in the Union.

Also, one minor point. I don't think one has to be a confederate apologist to think that the term "Civil War" is an inappropriate moniker. The term is most commonly used to describe conflicts that involve two or more groups fighting over control of the same geographic area. The South seceded. It did not attempt to conquer the North. Thus, while the terms the "War between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence" are certainly used by unsavory groups today, it does not mean that they are in themselves inappropriate.

Here is my position, maybe it is "neocon" but I see it as simple libertarianism: Any State which enforces chattel slavery is criminal in nature and can be destroyed at will (like any other criminal band) for any reason.

If the Confederacy had won and the Rothbardians
were subject to the Confederate State, then
they would be unreasoning enemies of the Confederacy and be making excuses for Lincoln's
statism. (There was no real need to go all out to defeat the Yankee invader. While Lincoln was
bad like all statists, he was no worse that Jeff Davis, etc.)

Presumably, there would be no room for alliance
with some kind of Southern patriotic organization. Perhaps they would be trying to organize African-Americans. (While slavery
might have disappeared, equality under the law
for black citizens might have taken even longer.)

It all comes down to finding other people who
hate the state. Usually, they just hate some
particular ruler, but the Rothbardians adopt
them as blood brothers.

I don't know anyone associated with the Council of Conservative Citizens and I have only known one person who was involved in the League
of the South. That one person didn't seem especially racist. Anyway, those are pretty marginal groups.

Sympathy for the Confederacy without supporting slavery isn't all that unusual among Southern whites.

I know a good number of people who idenfity
with the slogan, "heritage not hate" and they
seem sincere to me.

(Personally, I find the confederate battle
flag to be an undesirable competitor to the my
personal favorite, the Gadsden flag, created by
Charleston's own Christopher Gadsden.)

One item to keep in mind. The question of
why SC left the union does not necessarily
have the same answer as the question of why
Virginia left the union. In my opinion,
South Carolina was paranoid about slavery
being abolished. Virginia left because it
didn't want to draft its population to help
invade South Carolina--at least immediately.
Of course, the reality that they wouldn't be
able to leave later if SC paranoia proved
correct, was an important consideration.
Notice that both of those consideration do
fit under the "state's rights" heading--
even if the most likely source of conflict
remained slavery.

I don't even know the names of the SC "fire-eaters" who pushed secession. But the "heroes"
of confederate sympathizers for the last century have been Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Why did they leave the union? I don't believe
it was because they wanted to protect slavery.
They said, anyway, it was loyalty to their state--Virginia.

I believe it is that reality that drives these
claims that the war between the states wasn't
really about slavery as well as the willingness
of so many people--people who do oppose slavery
and favor equality under the law for all races--
to continue to have sympathy to the Confederacy.

One final note, a lot of this sympathy involves
honoring the war dead. I can assure you,
taking a negative view of Vietnam veterans or
war dead because of the many negative aspects
of the Vietnam War isn't a very popular attitude
around here. Perhaps y'all Yankees have a substantial portion of your population that would
spit on the grave of someone who gave their life
in Vietnam. But I suspect that many who realize
what a disaster that war was (as I do) would
not take that attitude. Perhaps contemplating
that matter will make it clearer why there
remains so much sympathy for the Confederacy in
the South. At least among the white majority.

Mr Boaz,

While I have not even peeked at Woods's book, I don't quite understand the antipathy to the notion of saying that the states had a legal right to secede, and that that cause would have served liberty in the long term.

The counterfactual that comes to mind when you complain about the near-majority of slaves in the seceding states is, what would have happened had the states not seceded? It's not at all clear that they would have been better off -- said another way, the legislatures may have been unknowingly operating the interests of the slave population.

But were the seceding states' legislatures representing the interests of the blacks? Legally, they were. Morally, they were not. But that is so abundantly clear that I question why you suggest such a thing would have to be explained to a reader.

It is clear from his many articles that I have read that Woods opposes slavery. Just how much space should be devoted in a book to repeat the obvious -- that chattel slavery is immoral and unjust?

Your dispute over the notion that the reason for Southern secession was the tariff is odd (I agree with you that slavery was important, but I don't discount the tariff as an important factor, either). Why odd? Because Charles Adams advances the same thesis in his books, yet the Cato Institute has favorably received them, for instance in the Cato Daily of May 13, 1998.

All this is to say: all books have flaws. Are you judging the book too harshly?

Mr. Palmer,

You make the following claim to which I have some questions:

ââ?¬Å?No one has a right to secede from another political unit for the purpose of holding others as slaves. The only way one can say that "the people" of South Carolina or Georgia decided to secede is if one doesn't consider black people to be people. The legislatures of the northern states might have legitimately decided to secede from the South or to stop enforcing runaway slave laws. But the situation is not symmetrical with regard to the southern states, which could not justifiably secede in order to keep people in chains.ââ?¬Â

Then one has to ask did South Carolina and Georgia (even Virginia, NC, or any other slave state for that matter) have the right to secede from the British crown? Did George Washington or Thomas Jefferson have a right to secede from the crown? After all from their actions they did not consider black people to be people. Granted in Washingtonââ?¬â?¢s will he freed his slaves, but what would he need slaves for after heââ?¬â?¢s dead? Would these deplorable acts give the British crown the right to pillage and destroy Mount Vernon or Monticello and impose a ââ?¬Å?reconstructionââ?¬Â on the southern slave-owning states? So then does an advocate of Washington or Jeffersonââ?¬â?¢s secession also not consider black people to be people? Well wait didnââ?¬â?¢t Jefferson speak out against slavery? But then again didnââ?¬â?¢t the Generals ââ?¬Å?Stonewallââ?¬Â Jackson and Lee?

One might retort saying that slavery wasnââ?¬â?¢t a reason for the revolution as the British crown itself endorsed slavery and the slave trade. However, wouldnââ?¬â?¢t a confederation of Americans give the slave-owning revolutionary states a more effective means of controlling their slave trade, free from any possible hindrance of the crown? Wouldnââ?¬â?¢t a confederation with northern abolitionists be better than a monarchical relationship with a potential rise of abolitionism in Parliament? If parliament passed abolition laws at the same time as the Stamp Acts would South Carolina and Georgia have had the right to join MA, CT, NY in revolt? Didnââ?¬â?¢t the Crown offer ââ?¬Å?freedomââ?¬Â to slaves for blacks who served the Kingââ?¬â?¢s army, akin to the half hearted measure of the Emancipation Proclaimation? Also if the Southââ?¬â?¢s modus for the Civil War wasnââ?¬â?¢t at all a tax rebellion and only about protecting slavery, just what emancipation or abolition laws were SC and GA seceding from?

Also did the northern states have a right then to contract a relationship with the slave owning states in the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution? Did they have the right to compromise, positively agreeing with the slave-owners that a slave was considered 3/5ths of a man, just so they could gain a ratified allegiance with South Carolina and Georgia? Would supporting the Constitution mean that one positively conceded that black people really aren�t people? So could Franklin and other abolitionists be guilty of this racist tendency? Would honoring the legacies of Franklin, Washington, or Jefferson befall one in this camp? Apologists of the Revolution, do they think black people really aren�t people? Is not Mr. Palmer (as is Misters Rockwell, Rothbard, Boaz, DiLorenzo, Woods) an apologist for the American secession from the crown? Dare I say, is Mr. Palmer a Racist? Does Mr. Palmer think that black people really aren�t people? I think not.

Regards,

Casey Khan

I think it's pretty easy to show that Mr. Palmer's theory of secession -- "The only way one can say that 'the people' of South Carolina or Georgia decided to secede is if one doesn't consider black people to be people" -- lapses quickly into incoherency. Casey Khan's post is a good start. One could quickly add more. How could the people of Union slave states Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky legitimately decide to fight the Confederacy? Could a state in which slaverly were legal, but in which few or no slaves resided, legitimately secede? What about a non-slave state that violates the liberties of its citizens in other ways (the military draft, oppressive taxation, etc.)? How many rights must a government violate before its actions become inherently illegimate so that it can be justly invaded and conquered by another rights-violating government?

For now, however, I'd like to pose a simple question. To Mr. Palmer, and many contemporary libertarians, it is self-evident that the Southern Confederacy was intrinsically evil and that the South had no right to secede. But many of the great libertarian writers -- Acton, Spooner, Mencken, Chodorov, Morley, Rothbard -- favored the Southern cause over the Northern one. As far as know, none of these was a racist, neo-Confederate Klansman who wished to subjugate blacks. (None was even a Southerner.) How could they have been so wrong? What does Tom Palmer understand that none of these men understood?

George F should first learn the meaning of the fallacy "Appeal to Authority" before he attempts to debate.

I personally could care less about a Slave State's "right" to secede. I would you to prove how such as State has a "right" to exist in the first place (or to put another way, a "right" to not be destroyed as a criminal band, as what happened to the CSA).

Tim, first, note that I did not cite those people to demonstrate that the Confederates were correct. I am simply asking Mr. Palmer to speculate as to why he thinks so many eminent libertarians got it wrong, and he gets it right.

Second, as an anarcho-capitalist, I don't think any State has a right to exist. However, this doesn't prevent me from making lesser-of-evils comparisons among the States that do exist.

1) You don't think it is possible these "eminent" libertarians were wrong on this issue (e.g. you are assuming they are ALWAYS correct on every issue)?

2) Are you saying straight-up slavery of african-americas was not as bad as the alternative?

The Citizen Councils of the 1950s and 60s that were disbanded did support state enforced segregation, and I would have chided them for that at the time. So did National Review. Boohoo. However, I think it is worth noting, that while they were called the "Klan with suit and ties" by their enemies, they were involved solely in civic activism, not violence or lynching like the Klan, so I would say that is a very unfair accusation to make.

Furthermore, the CofCC, which the late Sam Francis was associated with was formed more than 20 years after the Citizens Councils disbanded. THey did use their mailing list (I would bet a good number 'respectable' conservative groups did as well), but other than that, there is no connection. So calling implying that he supported the Klan is slander by my book. I personally find the CofCC a bit too crude and aimed more at Middle America for my tastes (I guess they don't have fancy enough suits or ties). That being said, what the hell is wrong with them saying that Canibalism exists in Africa (are you denying it.) Why the hell would Western Nations want to import foreigners from cultures that permit it (and yes there have been cases at least in England where African immigrants have committed many acts of canibalism. So yes, the word 'rampant' may be a bit of a hyperbole, but the point still seems legitimate) Furthermore, if blacks are committing racially based crimes against whites (is it racist to simply state the fact that black on white crime is much, much, much more prevalent than vice versa) what is wrong with publicizing that fact? Did you chide homosexuals for publicizing the Matthew Sheppard case, or blacks publicizing the James Byrd murder? (even though it now appears the former had nothing to do with the fact that he was gay)

Furthermore, Sam Francis never endorsed state enforced segregation. ( http://www.vdare.com/francis/frum.htm ) As I pointed out to you before, he explicitly disavowed it. Now one can accuse Sam of many things, but no one ever accused him of mincing words or hiding his true positions (doing so caused him great professional harm), so there is absolutely no reason not to take his word on that. So that is also a knowing lie you spread about him.

Finally as for your point about Sam slandering people. You see it is a civilizational norm (I guess these are racist) that when someone dies, you give their friends and family some time to grieve before you attack them. That's why most obituaries do not harp on some of the more controversial or unpleasant aspects of ones life. Sam may have been ungenerous with advocates of free immigration (though I don't really see what's wrong with what you quoted), but he for instance, did not attack the late Julian Simon the day after he died.

Translation: "civic activism" meaning they supported the State oppressing blacks, which means they supported violence by proxy. But other than that, they were swell good ole boys.

"but other than that, there is no connection."

HILARITY. They just happened to have the SAME NAME and SAME membership. But it was just all a big coinkydink!

Tim:

"You don't think it is possible these 'eminent' libertarians were wrong on this issue"?

Sure, I think it's possible. I just don't think it's very likely. Given the quality of these men's writings in other areas, I suspect they had legitimate reasons for their positions on this issue.

If I found myself in disagreement with the members of that group on any major issue, I'd certainly want to study their arguments and re-think my own. I wouldn't act as if only a fool or charlatan could hold the position they held.

George F: Nobody is questioning the motivations of the libertarians you listed. Your argument was that Tom Palmer is wrong because he disagrees with the libertarians you listed. This is a fallacy, an "appeal to authority." Palmer has listed why they would be wrong. He has made no such claim it is "self-evident" as his reasons are clearly listed above.

It is this type of shitty reasoning to defend a statist, collectivst arugment that makes me dislike most paleolibertarinas. Where is your answer to my question #1? Are you trying to rapidly read the Rothbardian Party Line to come up with a response or what?

I meant: your answer to my question #2

I did not say "Palmer is wrong because he disagrees with the libertarians you listed." I said "Given that so many emiment libertarians defended the Confederacy, there must be more to the argument than the belief that black people aren't people." You need to read more carefully.

Palmer, of course, does not respectfully disagree with those libertarians. He smears them as ignorant, dishonest, or both. "The argument that somehow the secession would have hastened the demise of slavery is a fallback for the Confederate apologists, who typically start by deliberately distorting the historical record and claiming that slavery had nothing to do with secession and that secession was 'really' about tariffs." Who knew that Jeff Hummel, whose superb book _Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men_ makes makes exactly this argument, was a Confederate apologist? He must be part of that "distressingly bizarre Confederate Revivalist culture being grown in Lew Rockwell's ideological petri dish." (A typical sample of Palmer's rhetorical style, freely employed while he simultaneously complains about others' use of "neocon.")

As for your question #2, my apologies for not answering it immediately. Some of us are actually employed full time, and are unable to spend all day piddling around on the web. (Sadly, this leaves me also unable to consult the Rothbardian Oracle, to get the Party Line. Now where is that damn ouija board....)

"Are you saying straight-up slavery of african-americas was not as bad as the alternative?" It's not entirely clear what you mean. If the "alternative" is a horrific war that killed 600,000 people, then I'd say yes, the alternative was worse. If the alternative is compensated emancipation, then no, the alternative is better. (Palmer and I actually agree on that!)

If you mean "Does a country that permits chattel slavery necessarily forfeit all defense rights relative to any country that does not permit it," then I'd say no, definitely not.

What a full mail bag. I'll have to print these all out and read them before I post any response. Meanwhile, thanks for the interesting comments!

Tiny Tim writes: "Any State which enforces chattel slavery is criminal in nature and can be destroyed at will (like any other criminal band) for any reason." But what if we could stop the most egregious criminal activity in which that state engages -- in this case, chattel slavery -- through a less expensive bargaining process?

We have good estimates of the prevailing price of slave labor in 1861. We also have good estimates of the costs of the war (loss of human life, physical destruction, government expenditures, and decline in consumption being the four biggest). Using those estimates, we can determine that a program of compensated emancipation would have been considerably cheaper than engaging in war. Should we forego that option because doing so would mean that we would not be able to "destroy" the other state?

You could say: We only know the costs of the war ex post.We could not have anticipated them to be so large. You could also say: What about the distributional consequences? Should non-slaveholding northerners been taxed to buy out slaveholding southerners?

Both points are reasonable -- although the second one raises the equally tricky distributional issue of why non-slaveholding northerners should have been drafted to fight a war against slaveholding southerners.

Yet, still, from a pure social welfare perspective emancipated compensation was clearly preferable to war. Would there be good reason to object to it? And if so, what is it?

"Any State which enforces chattel slavery is criminal in nature and can be destroyed at will (like any other criminal band) for any reason"

So if England came in in to America in 1800, killed 600 thousand people, and then freedthe slaves, that would be OK?

Just wanted to add that I finished reading this book last week. While I'm glad people like Young, Muller, & Palmer are critiquing the book and it's author, I have to say the I enjoyed the book. It was obvious that Woods is coming at issues from a certain perspective and a lot needs to be taken with a grain of salt (I realize now possibly a big grain after reading his resume).

Still, even in the chapter on the Civil War I was not aware of some of Lincoln's views on race (which are referenced by direct quotation). And while the book is an easy read that doesn't go into the kind of detail many might like, I thought it was great refresher of hero's like Herbert Dow and origins of his company Dow Chemical as well as a historical reminder of murders like Stalin and his starvation of the Ukrainians.

For those who are interested, Woods has written an expanded version of his books's chapter on the Civil War, the chapter that has the critics in a tizzy: http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods31.html.

BTW, Woods reminds us of another one of those Crazy Confederates who thought dividing the Union would hasten the end of slavery: William Lloyd Garrison.

For those who are interested, Woods has written an expanded version of his book's chapter on the Civil War, the chapter that has the critics in a tizzy: http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods31.html.

BTW, Woods reminds us of another one of those Crazy Confederates who thought dividing the Union would hasten the end of slavery: William Lloyd Garrison.

Garrison-wasn't he a staunch abolitionist? Just wondering, how did he believe secession would hasten slavery's end?

Palmer: "No one has a right to secede from another political unit for the purpose of holding others as slaves."

I would instead say that Southerners did not have the right to hold blacks as slaves, but they had the right to secede.

Lots of interesting comments, but some of them are remarkably misleading. First, William Lloyd Garrison was not a supporter of the Confederacy, as the comment by George F. just above Adam W.'s query implies. At one point Garrison supported the withdrawal of the northern states from union with the southern states in order to end enforcement of the fugitive slave laws and to provide a haven for fugitive slaves. The southern states seceded in order to perpetuate slavery. George F. has taken a very long step toward dishonesty with the remark above.

More to follow in a moment...

One thing that the abolitionists despised was the Fugitive Slave Acts and Dredd Scott, because they felt that it compelled them to be complicit in helping slavery. This meant that runaway slaves would have to make it to Canada to be free. Garrison argued that the North should have seceded, and then it would not return runaway slaves. This is one reason why some argue that slavery would have ended rather quickly in the South had they won the war (I'm don't all together buy that) Admittedly, it would be interesting how the South would have responded if this had happened.

I'm not sure, however, if Garrison supported the invasion of the South by the North though.

Also a quick point on the abolitionists and us "rothbard cultists." While I am not a fan of the radical abolitionists (minus spooner) it is worth noting that Murray Rothbard called himself a copperhead abolitionist and admired both Calhoun and Davis, but also Garrisson, Spooner, and even John Brown and Nat Turner. I disagree with him on that, but I think to somehow act like he was some backwards apologist for the Old South is absurd.

Well, now that I'm being accused of dishonesty, I think it's time for me to bow out of this discussion.

Tom wrote: "The argument that somehow the secession would have hastened the demise of slavery is a fallback for the Confederate apologists, who typically start by deliberately distorting the historical record and claiming that slavery had nothing to do with secession and that secession was 'really' about tariffs."

I pointed out that the Northern abolitionist and anti-Confederate William Lloyd Garrison believed that secession (in this case, Northern secession) would have hastened the demise of slavery. Mr. Palmer responds by implying that I think Garrison was a Confederate! Perhaps he did not catch that my phrase "Crazy Confederates" was meant as a jibe.

Anyway, there are lots of interested comments on this thread. However, the owner of the site seems uninterested in reasoned discourse. His mind is made up, he's happy to preach to the rest of us, and happy to call everyone else nasty names. But he has no desire to listen to alternative points of view. Fine, it's his bandwidth. Enjoy.

George F. is offended, but doesn't note that his misleading remarks evidently did mislead Adam W. To refer to "secession" in this context is clearly to direct the readers to the secession that happened. George F. could have made the matter clear by clarifying and stating that Garrison favored an earlier secession by the north from the south. His statement had the effect of misleading some readers into thinking that Garrison supported southern secession, which was simply not the case. If you're going to mislead others through the abuse of language, don't feign moral indignation when you're caught at it.

If I can play devil's advocate, I did know that calling Garrison a "crazy Confederate" was sarcasm.

One thing that the abolitionists despised was the Fugitive Slave Acts and Dredd Scott, because they felt that it compelled them to be complicit in helping slavery. This meant that runaway slaves would have to make it to Canada to be free. Garrison argued that the North should have seceded, and then it would not return runaway slaves. This is one reason why some argue that slavery would have ended rather quickly in the South had they won the war (I'm don't all together buy that) Admittedly, it would be interesting how the South would have responded if this had happened.

I'm not sure, however, if Garrison supported the invasion of the South by the North though.

Also a quick point on the abolitionists and us "rothbard cultists." While I am not a fan of the radical abolitionists (minus spooner) it is worth noting that Murray Rothbard called himself a copperhead abolitionist and admired both Calhoun and Davis, but also Garrisson, Spooner, and even John Brown and Nat Turner. I disagree with him on that, but I think to somehow act like he was some backwards apologist for the Old South is absurd.

That takes us to the differences between kinds of secession, their motivation, and the likely effects. The legislatures of the colonies voted for secession in order to advance liberty and a very strong case can be made that they succeeded. Had they voted in order to avoid the abolition of slavery by the British Crown, the secession would have been unjustified, as it would have been in pursuit of injustice, rather than of justice. There is nothing incoherent about that. It seems fairly straightforward, despite Mr. Khan�s and George F.�s apparent difficulties in understanding the idea of marginal improvements.

A reading of the works of figures such as Calhoun show that they were quite afraid of the future abolition of slavery in the United States. That was a major reason, indeed, the overwhelming reason, for the secession. (William Woolsey neatly dissects some of the different motivations above.)

I lead seminars on the Declaration of Independence several times a year. I have the students read and discuss a version that presents Jefferson�s original draft and the various amendments that resulted in the final version. In the original draft, Jefferson wrote,

ââ?¬Å?he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.ââ?¬Â (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html )

The time in which the Declaration was written was one in which there was a general recognition of the evils of slavery. (That changed, however, especially in the southern states. Slavery came to be regarded as a positive good.) We spend a fair amount of time discussing how Jefferson could write such words and yet hold others in chains. How could he fail to free his slaves? How could he abuse a young girl such as Sally Hemmings? (Whether the current descendents are his offspring or those of his close male relatives is not proven, but that he abused Ms. Hemmings, who was both of tender years and unfree to refuse him, is hard to deny.) The questions are important and challenging. The best that I can make of it is that Jefferson had a flawed character, that he suffered from weakness of will, and that he failed to live up to the standards he set. Given that, he still acquitted himself better than did others of his generation, and still better than many of those who followed. (I should also point out that the great evil of which abolitionists complained at the time, and for which they got their name, was the slave trade and the horrors of the ââ?¬Å?middle passage.ââ?¬Â That was abolished; the next step, many believed, would be the abolition of slavery, but events proved otherwise.)

I don�t sweep such issues under the rug, but I also don�t fail to recognize the great strides toward freedom that Jefferson and those of his generation did make.

As to George F.ââ?¬â?¢s attempt to invoke authorities, yes, I think that people who favored the Confederacy were wrong to do so. (I must say that Mencken had little nice to say about the South, and Spooner most certainly did not favor the Confederacy. With regard to the latter, to claim the contrary is a remarkable distortion; he opposed the war and he opposed after-the-fact ââ?¬Å?violation of contractââ?¬Â grounds for punishments of supporters of secession, but he did not support the slave power. I do not know what views all of the others held, although Iââ?¬â?¢m happy to be directed toward their writings on the topic. ) I should point out that Jeffrey Rogers Hummel does not make ââ?¬Å?exactly this argumentââ?¬Â (ââ?¬Å?that slavery had nothing to do with secession and that secession was 'really' about tariffsââ?¬Â), as George F. states. Hummel certainly does not state that secession had nothing to do with slavery and that secession was really about tariffs. Far from it. George F. should go back and read Hummelââ?¬â?¢s book, as he evidently did not understand it. Hummel has stated the decision to secede can be and should be distinguished from the decision to go to war. George F. has committed the very error that Hummel warns against.

Mr. Epstein has valiantly tried to defend the indefensible Sam Francis, stating that ââ?¬Å?Sam Francis never endorsed state enforced segregation.ââ?¬Â Thatââ?¬â?¢s not what Francis states in the column to which Mr. Epstein points us. In fact, of the charge that he and his friends ââ?¬Å?championed the Southern Confederacy of the 1860s and the anti-civil rights resistance of the 1960s,ââ?¬Â he wrote, ââ?¬Å?Well, in a word, yes. We did most of those things.ââ?¬Â Francis wrote, ââ?¬Å?No one today, of course, advocates legally enforced racial segregation,ââ?¬Â but he neither wrote that he did not do so then, nor did he disavow or denounce it later. He was a fairly clever rhetorician, and he was careful in that essay to refer to ââ?¬Å?no oneââ?¬Â ââ?¬Å?advocatingââ?¬Â legally enforced racial segregation now. So he didnââ?¬â?¢t advocate it, but did he want it? He was clever enough to leave the door open to that possibility, and Iââ?¬â?¢m fairly confident that he did so for a reason. He could have disavowed it directly, and he did not do so. Sam Francis wasnââ?¬â?¢t merely in error; he was devoted to the defense of what any decent person today would recognize as race hatred. I challenge anyone to visit the CoCC web site and not be repulsed by the venomous hatred of black people expressed there, hatred that Sam Francis, as a board member and as editor of their publication, endorsed.

The issues touched above are not always cut and dried, but there is one issue that is rather straightforward. The Confederacy was a conspiracy to keep people enslaved. Others joined or supported it to fight off invasion, or out of local patriotism, or for other reasons. There is no reason to spit on their graves, as William Woolsey rightly points out. But there is also no reason to seek a revival of the Confederacy. No reason to celebrate it. No reason to yearn for it.

Dang, just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in....

One quick clarification for Mr. Palmer: When I said Hummel offers "exactly this argument" I was referring to the first part of the Palmer quote, "The argument that somehow the secession would have hastened the demise of slavery is a fallback for the Confederate apologists." I should have been more precise. Hummel certainly thinks the war was about slavery. He also demonstrates that the Northern states, through the fugitive slave laws, were subsidizing the costs of Southern slavery, and that allowing the Southern states to secede would reduced the profitability of slavery, increasing the likelihood that it could have been ended by peaceful means.

It is simply untrue, as Mr. Palmer asserts, that only "Confederate apologists" argue that Southern secession would have hastened the demise of slavery.

Ah...There has been substantial mutual misunderstanding, then. I did not argue that Hummel was opposed to splitting up the union. Still, he does not endorse the following:

"The argument that somehow the secession would have hastened the demise of slavery is a fallback for the Confederate apologists."

The reason is that it is not his fallback position. I wrote "fallback" for a reason. First, you hear that the legislators of the southern states had the "right to secede," and when one argues that they had no "right" to speak for the slaves whom they took into the Confederacy, the fallback is that it would have hastened the demise of slavery, a view that was certainly not shared by the architects of the Confederacy, who believed that they were likely to prolong slavery, not eliminate it, by forming the Confederacy.

Let me add one additional note. I do not believe that those who are nostalgic for the Confederacy are so because they were eager for the abolition of slavery, the liberation of the slaves, the confiscation of the ill gotten wealth of the slave owners, and the restitution of that wealth to the slaves who had been robbed of their liberties and of their very lives, just as people who are nostalgic for the Third Reich are not so because they think it hastened the establishment of the state of Israel. Since the Confederacy was set up to perpetuate slavery, I am suspicious of any and all who articulate nostalgia for it, who brush aside the crime of slavery, or who speak of "self-determination" as the foundation for the CSA, when the self-determination of many of the selves affected was deliberately denied by the advocates of southern independence.

The "price" of the labor of the slaves is irrevelent. Slavery is not about "stolen labor" it is about STOLEN LIVES. It is inhuman.

Other than straight-up democided, mass slavery is probably the most vile thing a state can do. You would think that most libertarians would see this, but then again, the core of Rothbardianism seems to be "Slave Morality."

"So if England came in in to America in 1800, killed 600 thousand people, and then freedthe slaves, that would be OK?"

If they overthrew the criminal regimes of the slave-states (such as South Carolina), then yes.

Tiny Tim said: "...the core of Rothbardianism seems to be 'Slave Morality.'"

Ah yes, if only the anarcho-capitalists were more Nietzschean... :)

Tiny Tim's remarks seem to indicate that he has been boxed into a corner. Surely killing 600,000 innocents to free one innocent can't be justified. (Maybe even killing one innocent to free 600,000 innocents can't be justified; at the least, some justification would be required.)

One could have opposed the war waged by the northern states without supporting the slavery-inspired secession by the southern states. Indeed, some did. (Although many of the abolitionists who early on came out for northern withdrawal from the union later supported the war against the southern states.)

It is worth remembering, for those who are interested in such matters, that (if memory serves me right -- and I've no chance at the moment to check the record) Garrison and some other abolitionists had early on criticized Spooner for his book on the unconstitutionality of slavery. It seems as if the only book some have read by Spooner is his "No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority." His other books are also quite well reading and give a much broader picture of a dedicated friend of liberty. (He was a friend of liberty with whom I do not always agree, as in his book on intellectual property; whether one ends up agreeing or not, Spooner is always challenging and well worth reading.)

One point in particular puzzles me in regards to the Confederate sympathizers: What happened to the "I'd push the button" mentality. DiLorenzo and others argue that the Civil War should have been avoided because slavery would have gradually faded from the scene. Perhaps. I find this quite odd, however. Apparently the South is justified in seceding due to the North's tyrannical economic protectionism, but the enslavement of almost half of the South's population should be left alone to abolish itself. Kinsella and others are almost always questioning the libertarian credentials of those who post on this blog, yet the violation of the axiomatic beginning of libertarianism (self-ownership) is virtually ignored by the Southern sympathizers. When they do ââ?¬Å?condemnââ?¬Â Southern slavery, it receives the very banal ââ?¬Å?While slavery was bad, the Northââ?¬â?¢s actionsââ?¬Â¦Ã¢â?¬Â

"Surely killing 600,000 innocents to free one innocent can't be justified.'

The key word here is INNOCENT. How innocent is a culture which enslaves an entire group of people (either directly or via proxy by democratic support of a regime which does)? Let's not be naive here.

I feel sad when a cop accidently shoots an innocent bystander. I believe in processes and controls to minimize these accidents. And I know a cop is murderer if he directly targets an innocent person. BUT STILL - targeting and shooting criminals is morally justified. The CSA was a criminal regime (which anyone can morally eradicate) and anyone talking up arms in its defense was a legitmate target. That doesn't justify the bad things the Union did. But the bad things the Union did still doesn't justify the existance of the CSA or unjustify it's erradication.

Dan: Well said.

Tiny Tim writes that slavery "is inhuman." I certainly agree with that. He also writes: "The 'price' of the labor of the slaves is irrevelent." I find that nonsensical. The United States had chattel slavery. So the question becomes how do we most cheaply rid the country of that evil. My argument is that compensated emancipation, while not a perfect solution to be sure, would have been much more desirable than a horrendously destructive war. I don't see how that is "unlibertarian" or consistent with "slave morality," whatever that ill-defined term means.

And, by the way, I am no Rothbardian. It is these sorts of hard questions that the Rothbardians seem eager to avoid -- especially when a rather straightforward empirical (gasp!) and perhaps even Posnerian (how evil!) analysis seem appropriate.

Eli: The "slave morality" cut was aimed at the Rothbardians, not you.

Your "negotiated settlement" seems irrelevent. The South was not willing to entertain any type of emancipation, hence why it formed the CSA.

PS: Assuming the USA is "evil" or the only party acting (e.g. the CSA were "victims") is what I mean by Slave Morality. The CSA chose to take up arms in defense of slavery, just as a bank robber chooses to shoot at the cops. Are the cops unjusfified in shooting back?

Eli: I am not trying to marginalize your "negotiated settlement" concept - It would have been better. But it just doesn't sound realistic given the actual circumstnaces.

Tom Palmer writes: "One could have opposed the war waged by the northern states without supporting the slavery-inspired secession by the southern states." This is an interesting statement. Is this meant to imply that one can not support secession without supporting its major inspiration, slavery? The statement "One could have opposed the war waged by the northern states without supporting slavery" would be very true, but what does secession have to do with it? I see secession as a key political right which cannot be alienated by any other sins of the parties in question, any more than they can alienate their right to free speech.

Dan asks "What happened to the 'I'd push the button' mentality?" Any real libertarian would "push the button" to end chattel slavery immediately, and then they would probably have a party to celebrate the pushing of the button. But you are asking them to push a button to end slavery AND ALSO start a huge war and conquer an independent country. That's not the same thing at all, since the purity of the goal is the whole point of the "button question". Radical libertarians advocate immediately ending Canada's national health care, but they don't advocate invading Canada, repealing national health care, and then incorporating Canada as the 51st state.

I wish to commend Tiny Tim on his or her courageous anti-slavery stance.

I should add that I don't believe the 600,000 deserved to die, only that they are completely blameless.

I also dispute that it is soley the USA's fault for their deaths, as the CSA (by it's existance) also put them at risk.

Mr. Kerner: Some of us don't believe an "independent country" can exist when it enslaves half its population.

But I am not a "radical libertarian" who fights tooth and nail for the "rights" of criminal regimes.

" they are NOT completely blameless."

damn it, I need to preview before I post!

Tiny Tim: It's true that all the slaveholding border states (with the exception of Washington, DC, which also permitted slavery and culturally was thoroughly southern in the mid-19th century) rejected Lincoln's plan for compensated emancipation. Part of this was probably due to economic reasons: they wanted a higher price. And part was probably due to social pressures: they didn't want to give up their "peculiar institution." But given how expensive the war actually was, slaveholders could have been compensated well above the prevailing price for slave labor in exchange for freeing their subjects, and it still would have been a less costly solution. It's true that we cannot know whether they would have accepted this deal at a new, higher price. But for most, I think their sense of cultural and regional pride would have given way in return for monetary gain. Also, I think that if such a proposal had been advanced, the four states of the "Upper South" (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas), which rather reluctantly seceded months after the initial seven left the union, would have brought significant pressure on their southern neighbors to reach a compromise.

Eli: Interesting. But I don't think they anticipated how expensive the war would be, given the advances in technology.

Also, I think you are discounting the "racism factor," the fact many would have to admit that black people were....well...really people with the same rights. It wasn't just "cultural and regional pride" but also "racial pride."

...and also the cost of giving up power over other people (which as libertarians we know is never cheap).

To me, this entire debate is one over emphasis: Certainly Lincoln was no prophet of freedom and liberty. Nor did Lincoln have the best interests of the black population at heart. The Civil War was not fought entirely to free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was largely hollow. We can all admit these things. However, the South represents the largest violator of libertarian ideals in our nation's history. To physically enslave, beat, rape, and murder humans is the grossest of gross violations of self ownership. That a group of states formed their own government and seceded to protect their right to tyranny is disgraceful. Did some believe they were seceding to protect liberty? Certainly. There is no honor, however, in defending a government that survived upon a foundation of slavery.

Exam Giver: 'What was the cause of the Civil War?'
Apu: 'The split between abolitionists and secessionists had come to a head in in The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 when...'
Exam Giver: 'Just say slavery.'
Apu: 'Slavery it is, sir!'

Mr. Kerner writes, "I see secession as a key political right which cannot be alienated by any other sins of the parties in question, any more than they can alienate their right to free speech." A political write for whom? If a person wants to secede just to be left alone to tend to his own affairs and to secure his own rights, that's one thing. (See, for such a proposal, Herbert Spencer's chapter on "The Right to Ignore the State" in his book "Social Statics".) But could I legitimately "secede" and take Mr. Kerner with me as my slave? What kind of an inalienable political right is that?

When Mr. Kerner writes of "other sins of the parties in question," I take it that he is referring to the sin of holding other people in chains. If that's correct, then he is flat wrong about not being able to lose the right to secede. You can lose your rights (in John Locke's terms, you forfeit them) if you aggress against the rights of others. I doubt that Mr. Kerner would say that someone's "right to secede" is unaffected in any way by the fact that at the same time (indeed, even for some time before) that person "secedes" he is capturing people and eating them, and that his "secession" is effected in order to continue doing so. If I am right and Mr. Kerner would agree that no one has the right to "secede" for the purpose of eating hapless victims, what right would one have to secede for the purpose of keeping others in chains?

TGP states:

"When Mr. Kerner writes of "other sins of the parties in question," I take it that he is referring to the sin of holding other people in chains. If that's correct, then he is flat wrong about not being able to lose the right to secede. You can lose your rights (in John Locke's terms, you forfeit them) if you aggress against the rights of others. I doubt that Mr. Kerner would say that someone's "right to secede" is unaffected in any way by the fact that at the same time (indeed, even for some time before) that person "secedes" he is capturing people and eating them, and that his "secession" is effected in order to continue doing so. If I am right and Mr. Kerner would agree that no one has the right to "secede" for the purpose of eating hapless victims, what right would one have to secede for the purpose of keeping others in chains?"

But I thought natural rights came in two flavors, alienable and inalienable. Violating another's rights, some (such as GHS) would argue, can cause one to lose alienable rights but not inalienable rights. If one views secession as an inalienable right--the political equivalent of the right of association--then one need not announce WHY one wishes to secede, any more than one need announce why one wishes to associate with A but not B.

MEANWHILE, one does not have the right to enslave others, and does not acquire it by seceding. One can be stopped from man-stealing either before or after secession.

So (in summary) I'm not clear why TGP feels one can secede for only "correct" reasons. I suspect it is because Tom is viewing this as a historical discussion of the actions of political entities (northern and southern governments) while others may be viewing this as a theoretical discussion of what INDIVIDUALS can, by right, do.

Ross

Ross is right that you can't alienate an inalienable right. But you can forfeit it. I may forfeit my right to liberty if I aggress against others, although I could not transfer that right to another. I may even forfeit my right to life, although I could not transfer that right to another.

Similarly, I cannot claim a right to exercise a power when the exercise of that power entails the violation of the rights of others. That is especially the case when the very purpose of exercising the power is to violate the rights of others.

Ross is also right to point out that this discussion is much about the asymmetrical situation of the northern (non-slave) states and the southern (slave) states. The former could have legitimately seceded for the purpose of withdrawing their former enforcement of slavery; the latter could not have legitimately seceded for the purpose of perpetuating slavery. The reasons for secession certainly matter when it comes to evaluating its legitimacy.

Tom G. Palmer writes: "A political right for whom?" Well, for everyone. Ross Levatter is correct that some rights are inalienable. "But could I legitimately 'secede' and take Mr. Kerner with me as my slave?" Theoretically, you could, but I would then secede from you and declare my freedom. Admittedly, this is a very abstruse way of describing real life. Actually, slavery is a separate issue from secession. If Tom Palmer enslaves me, I'm going to be struggling for my freedom regardless of whether he is a secessionist or not.

When I say "other sins" I mean any sins. So, no, I would not "agree that no one has the right to 'secede' for the purpose of eating hapless victims". Eating hapless victims has nothing to do with secession -- the cannibalism should stop under any circumstances. It's like asking "do you have the right the free speech if you use it to slander people?" Yes, you always have the right to free speech; no, you must not slander people. Surely, no matter how many times I am convicted of defamation, no one would try to stop me from making statements in favor of, say, voting for John Kerry.

I disagree with Mr. Kerner on a number of points, it seems, but one is especially striking. "Eating hapless victims has nothing to do with secession -- the cannibalism should stop under any circumstances." But slavery had a great deal to do with the secession of the southern states. That's one of my main reasons for despising the Confederacy so. The purpose of the Confederacy was the defense of slavery. As such, it had no right to exist.

Mrr. Kerner writes that "theoretically" I could legitimately secede and take him with me as my slave. I cannot understand the claim at all. It's like saying that "theoretically" I could leave the country with him stuffed in my suitcase. Does he think that I shouldn't be stopped were I to try to do that? Of course I should be. No one has the right to kidnap another person, just as no one has the right to leave the country "with" his slaves.

As to speech, certainly the circumstances matter. You don't have the right to incite a lynch mob to murder someone. You don't have the right to shout out incorrect information in order to create a stampede for the exits. You don't have the right to tell a hit man to go and murder someone else. Those are not examples of free speech, but of criminal acts that involve speech. Some speech is not protected, such as criminal conspiracy. Otherwise, Hitler, who merely induced others through speech to commit crimes, would be innocent, while the executioner who pulled the trigger would be guilty. That can't be right.

Mr. Kerner's theory of the relationship between different kinds of acts seems insufficiently nuanced to capture criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, and the like. (Kidnapping is not an exercise of the right to freedom of movement plus stuffing someone in a sack; it is a complex of physical acts united by intentionality. The entire complex act is illegal, not merely bits of it that might be separated from others.)

I really think Tom Palmer is a fine one to be preaching to others about intellectual dishonesty. He continues to repeat, as though it were a mantra of some sort, that the states which made up the Confederate States of America left the union in order to protect and perpetuate slavery. He himself knows full well, however, that this description, at best, applies only to some of the Confederate States. Four of them -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- definitely did not secede from the Union because of slavery. They remained in the Union while the lower South formed its new confederacy, and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel believes they would likely have remained there permanently if the U.S. government had allowed the seceding states to go in peace. Instead, after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter (which was inside Confederate territory) on April 12, 1861, Lincoln issued a proclamation calling up the militia and making clear his determination to use force of arms to prevent the lower South from seceding. As Hummel writes, ââ?¬Å?Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas all promptly transferred their allegiance to the Confederate States of America. Previously unwilling to secede over the issue of slavery, these four states were now ready to fight for the ideal of a voluntary Union.ââ?¬Â (141)

Even less convincing is Palmer's insistence that those southern states that did secede over slavery had no right to do so, because they sanctioned slavery. In considering this tissue of absurdities, let us consider for a moment the nature of the government from which they were seceding. *It* sanctioned slavery. Human beings lived in slavery in the United States during the so-called "Civil War," just as they did in the Confederate States. The Constitution of the United States recognized the "property right" of slave owners in their slaves and required that fugitive slaves be apprehended and returned to their "masters." During the war, the president of the United States emphasized repeatedly that the war was not being fought to end slavery. For any partisan of the Union to claim that the Confederate States had no right to secede because they condoned slavery is laughable. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

I think I now understand better the point that Mr. Palmer is making, which was not completely clear to me before. He says: "Mr. Kerner writes that 'theoretically' I could legitimately secede and take him with me as my slave. I cannot understand the claim at all. It's like saying that 'theoretically' I could leave the country with him stuffed in my suitcase." If Mr. Palmer wants to kidnap me and then physically leave the country, it would be quite reasonable for someone to stop him. If he makes it to another country, it would still be nice if someone would free me from his suitcase. However, if Mr. Palmer merely wishes to stash me in his luggage and there declare "I am now an independent country, the Republic of Palmer", who cares about the declaration? What difference does it make? Please rescue me from his clutches in any event.

I also think that the point Ross Levattner makes above is important: that we may be discussing the slightly different topics of a) what individuals have the theoretical right to do; and b) the concrete case of the actions surrounding the War between the States. Whether or not the Northern states should have invaded the Southern states in order to free the slaves is any interesting question. I am certainly sympathetic to people like Lysander Spooner, who wanted private guerilla raids on slave plantations. However, they could equally well have invaded regardless of whether they recognized the independence of white southerners, which is why secession is a separate issue.

TGP: "As to speech, certainly the circumstances matter. You don't have the right to incite a lynch mob to murder someone." I agree completely. There are things one must not do with one's free speech. In that sense, it is semantic to argue over whether one retains "freedom of speech" while in the act of abusing it. However, I hope that everyone will agree that, once you are done shouting fire in a crowded theater, you still retain your freedom of speech afterward, and no amount of illegal speech can change that.

As to the purpose of the CSA and the purpose of the war:

Tom Palmer is correct to point out that the articles of secession of some Confederate states (subject to Jeff Riggenbach's qualification above) mentioned the defense of slavery. But, to demonstrate that the War was "about slavery," don't we also have to know what the Northern states thought the War was about? I think a fair reading of the historical record indicates that neither Lincoln, nor key decision-makers within his Administration, not Union commanders, nor the Union rank-and-file, (a) wished to eliminate slavery in the South, (b) believed in full and equal legal rights for blacks, (c) welcomed free blacks to live in their states, and so on. Inded, the Union armies probably would have revolted if the troops thought they were risking their lives to liberate the black man. And of course we know that Lincoln's entire political agenda, before becoming President, was focused on Henry Clay's "American system" of high tariffs, corporate welfare, inflationary central banking, and the like.

So, if it could be shown that the Northern armies were fighting for something else, other than emancipation, can't we say that the War was not only "about slavery," but also about the something else?

Mr. Riggenbach seems to have misunderstood my point. I was not advocating war on the confederacy, but rather disagreement -- and in some cases disgust -- with those who yearn for it. The initial decision to secede was motivated by....slavery, which Mr. Riggenbach does not dispute. That others later joined or supported that cause (as I acknowledge above) was in some cases motivated by other factors:
"The issues touched above are not always cut and dried, but there is one issue that is rather straightforward. The Confederacy was a conspiracy to keep people enslaved. Others joined or supported it to fight off invasion, or out of local patriotism, or for other reasons."

I'm frankly surprised that Mr. Riggenbach doesn't note that the initial decision to secede was motivated by a desire to perpetuate injustice and a fear that remaining in the Union would have led to it's end. As I also made clear (regarding "the asymmetrical situation of the northern (non-slave) states and the southern (slave) states"), "The former could have legitimately seceded for the purpose of withdrawing their former enforcement of slavery; the latter could not have legitimately seceded for the purpose of perpetuating slavery. The reasons for secession certainly matter when it comes to evaluating its legitimacy." There is neither an endorsement of the waging of war nor any endorsement of the policy of the Union of enforcing runaway slave laws; the reason that the Confederacy was formed was to perpetuate an institution that its supporters feared would disappear if they were to remain in the Union. Others joined for other reasons, but that does not negate the point that the motivation for formation of the Confederate States of America was to perpetuate slavery. For that reason, it gets no sympathy from me. (I should add that Hungary joined the Axis powers in the Second World War because of its geographical position and because Hitler promised Transylvania to whichever of the two states of Romania [also an ally] or Hungary fought the hardest against the USSR; that makes me more sympathetic to the Romanians and the Hungarians, but it does not diminish the evil of Hitler's territorial expansionism and the wickedness of his dream of a National Socialist European Reich. The same may apply to German soldiers who fought in the war simply because they were drafted, or because they feared invasion of their homeland, or for other reasons. There's no reason to spit on their graves, but also no reason to be sympathetic to the cause that led to the bloodshed in the first place.)

Mr. Kerner's point is now more clear to me, as well, but I don't understand why he uses the term "freedom of speech" when describing cases in which one should not, in fact, be "free" to use it, since one should be prohibited from doing so. It's not even clear that once one is done shouting fire in a crowded theater, one should retain "freedom of speech" afterward; if one engages in criminal conspiracy to murder someone, it is not unusual for a part of the punishment to be a ban on one's speaking out for profit, say by writing a memoir or directing a movie about one's crimes, afterward. The point is not a narrow sematic one, but a broader point about the intentionality of complex acts; the secession that led to the formation of the Confederate States of America was about retaining slavery -- it was not an act of secession that was merely coupled to the accidental accompanying fact that slavery would be retained; it was a movement to retain slavery. As such, I'm not sympathetic, despite my sympathy for the right of persons to secede from larger political units when in pursuit of justice, or, at the least, when not in the pursuit of injustice.

I had not seen Patrick's note until after posting the one above. Note that I did not attempt to "demonstrate that the War was 'about slavery.'" As I wrote above, "One could have opposed the war waged by the northern states without supporting the slavery-inspired secession by the southern states." I said that the formation of the Confederacy was about slavery. The war was primarily about union, as I think is fairly clear from the historical record. So Patrick's remarks are about some other discussion than the one above.

1) Was it wrong for the People's Republic of Vietnam to invade Cambodia to overthrow Pol Pot?

2) Was it wrong for the e People's Republic of Vietnam to invade the Republic of Vietnam? (I would LOVE to see the Rothbardians try to squirm out of this one. Afterall, do you think we all forgot how you cheered the NVA and Viet Cong and cheered the end of South Vietnam as a "death of a state"? So why was this North vs. South any different than the despicable CSA being destroyed by the USA?)

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm

"But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution...For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that 'Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

This is not complicated. When the folks who seceded formally explained to the world their decision to secede, they discussed hostility to slavery, hostility to slavery, and hostility to slavery. Read the words of the secessionists. Words have meaning.

Frederick Douglass gave a speech once ("Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln") that might shed some light on this issue.

In the speech, Douglass made clear that Lincoln was, like most whites of his time, a racist, and concerned only with the interests of his own race.

That said, Douglass continued, "Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery."

Douglass continued, "I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."

Finally, in a list of what black Americans "saw" during the Lincoln presidency, Douglass noted, "we saw the Confederate States, based upon the idea that our race must be slaves, and slaves forever, battered to pieces and scattered to the four winds."

You can find the whole thing at:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=39

Beyond Douglass' account (which I would easily accept before Tom DiLorenzo's or any of Lew Rockwell's folks), there is evidence that, to a number of Southerners, slavery was more important than secession, states' rights, voluntary union, or any other consideration. For instance, many of them lobbied for union, not secession, based only on their fear that secession would nullify the Fugitive Slave Act and give slaves greater incentives to escape.

In any event, I think it's wise to consult original sources for these discussions, and for my money, few people offer greater insights than Frederick Douglass.

Well, I'm comfortably letting the matter rest on this footing: the same way that one could, arguably, void one's right to future speech by egregious misuse of speech, one could argue that those individuals who are directly responsible for slavery might void their rights to secede from another country. If one supports the death penalty, one could make a pretty strong case that those who hold slaves void their right to live. Clearly they deserve some sanction stronger than just being forced to remain in the U.S. Actually, that hardly seems like much punishment at all, considering the deals that the white Southern elite made in the 1870s to retain their local power under the United States.

As for those Southerners who were not directly involved in slavery and who were like the 2/3 of Confederate soldiers in a study who stated that their reason for fighting was to defend their homes, I still don't see what would prejudice their claim at independence.

"stated that their reason for fighting was to defend their homes"

Is that why they swore loyalty to the CSA?

Tom, I guess I'm confused, then, about what this thread is all about. You began the thread by slamming Tom Woods (and linking, approvingly, to Cathy Young's attack on his book). Now you're saying you don't necessarily support the Union's invasion of the South, only that the Confederacy deserves no "sympathy." Well, neither Woods nor his book offers any "sympathy" for the Confederacy, as in some kind of nostalgia for the Good Ole' Days when blacks knew their place. His book argues that Southern secession was legal and that the Union's invsion was unjust. You may disagree with the former point (you haven't said where you stand on the latter), but is this any reason to smear the book as racist trash?

Patrick,

I've not smeared the book as "racist trash." I wrote the following,

"Since the Confederacy was set up to perpetuate slavery, I am suspicious of any and all who articulate nostalgia for it, who brush aside the crime of slavery, or who speak of 'self-determination' as the foundation for the CSA, when the self-determination of many of the selves affected was deliberately denied by the advocates of southern independence."

I do not believe that the decision to secede was justified, for the purposes set out above. I also wrote,

"I believe that the Civil War ('War Between the States,' 'Late Unpleasantness,' or whatever the Rockwellites call it) was a horror and that many institutions inimical to liberty and justice had their start in the U.S. during that war and its aftermath."

Where's the smear?

I fear that a book such as Mr. Woods's will associate reasonable matters, such as the question of whether the New Deal prolonged the Depression, rather than ending or ameliorating it, with sympathy with the cause of the Confederacy.

As to linking "approvingly" to Cathy Young's review, I wrote,

"Cathy Young of Reason magazine has a review of Woodsââ?¬â?¢s book in the Boston Globe, to which Professor Woods has responded by calling her a ââ?¬Å?neoconââ?¬Â (the slam of choice on lewrockwell.com for anyone who disagrees with their Confederate Revivalism) and writing, 'There is no point in answering someone like this.' Zing!"

Mr. Woods's response was feeble. My "approval" of Ms. Young's review was to write "Cathy Young of Reason magazine has a review of Woods's book in the Boston Globe."

I fear that you are reading far too much into what others write. That seems the other side of the coin of "reading far too little into what others write," in cases when people express interest in or sympathy for, say, the Council of Conservative Citizens, but argue that "it's not racist to run articles on "the brutal beating of a white man by a hulking black man," which seems to miss the context of the article, which is the promotion of race hatred.

I posted a note about the controversy about Woods and his book, mentioning "links to Wood's defenses" and suggested that readers [you] can "make up your own mind." That doesn't seem much like a smear.

Very interesting discussion, but it's hard to keep up with the flow of comments... :-)

I think that Tom has only partially addressed Patrick's post. He has replied to the claim that he smeared Woods' book. But he has not stated whether he thought the war was warranted or just.

Sure, he has written, that the war "was a horror and that many institutions inimical to liberty and justice had their start in the U.S. during that war and its aftermath." But no reasonable person would disagree with the first part of that statement, and few with the latter part. The question remains: Where does he stand on the Union's decision to wage war on the South? The issue may not be "cut and dried." Few hard questions are. But that doesn't mean that serious people who engage in public forums like this one -- especially those who host them -- don't have a responsibility to try to clearly address those questions as best they can.

Sorry if my answer was not clear enough. I would have opposed the decision to go to war. How the world would have turned out is difficult to say, but I don't think that the decision to wage war to keep the union intact was just. I also think that the efforts to free slaves, against which the Confederacy was organized, was just and that guerrilla war against the Confederacy by slaves and their supporters was just. Just as I opposed the war against Saddam's regime in Iraq, I also think that Saddam should hang for his crimes and I am glad that his regime is no more.

I'm quite concerned, however, that the legitimate claims for secession around the world are tarred with association with the illegitimate claims for secession that motivated the Confederacy. The same goes for the issue of "states rights," a term I don't use because it is quite misleading (at best, states exercise delegated powers that are not delegated to the United States) and because it carries so much ugly freight with which it should not be burdened. (The issue of gay marriage has been put in terms of "states rights" by some, which has led some opponents to raise the connection with the ugliness of Jim Crow laws, which were also justified under the term "states rights"; I would rather note that there is no power at the federal level to define marriage for the states, which means that, to the extent that it comes under the authority of government at all, it is a matter reserved to the states or to the people.)

Indeed, it is like libertarians hailing National Socialists as paragons of property rights because they were fighting FDR and the New Dealers.

So why pick super-statist racist slavers like the CSA as an example for liberty? (Unless the Rockwellians are trying to get money from racists, trying to appeal to racists politically or maybe really are racists...)

Tom: "I fear that you are reading far too much into what others write." OK, fair enough. I'll try not to do that. But, in fairness, note the photos with which you chose to decorate this blog entry. Wouldn't you say that's just a bit inflammatory?

By the way, while Woods did not pen a detailed reply to Cathy Young's piece, he was written several other replies to critics (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods35.html, http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods36.html, and also http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007450.html, in which he explains his relationship to the League of the South). He also posts a short summary of the book itself at http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods30.html.

Tom writes:

"I don't understand why he uses the term 'freedom of speech' when describing cases in which one should not, in fact, be 'free' to use it, since one should be prohibited from doing so. It's not even clear that once one is done shouting fire in a crowded theater, one should retain 'freedom of speech' afterward."

In a free society, on one's own property, or on the property of a consenting owner, one may say anything one damned well pleases.

But I'm sure we can all wholeheartedly agree that if we want to know what Abraham Lincoln was attempting to achieve, we should ignore what Lincoln said about the matter and consult Frederick Douglass.

Apologies to all, the links above seem to include the punctuation marks, so they don't come up properly. Here are corrected links:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods35.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods36.html
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007450.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods30.html

(Tom: I think there is a bug in your software. I typed those links in carefully, putting the commas and periods outside the closing anchor tag. When I previewed my comment, however, the punctuation marks had been moved inside the tag. I didn't do it, I swear. The software seems to do this automatically.)

"...there is evidence that, to a number of Southerners, slavery was more important than secession, states' rights, voluntary union, or any other consideration. For instance, many of them lobbied for union, not secession, based only on their fear that secession would nullify the Fugitive Slave Act and give slaves greater incentives to escape."

Yep. Secession and slavery were different issues, though they overlapped. Many people, including most non-slaveholding Southerners, wanted to secede for reasons other than slavery. Other people wanted to keep slavery and correctly realized that they could stay in the Union, and, although they would be burdened by high tariffs, Lincoln would probably do nothing to interfere with slavery. Indeed, he would help send fugitive slaves back to their masters, as he did throughout the war.

During the war there were Southerners who thought that abolishing slavery would help them fight for their independence. Robert E. Lee, for one, was much more interested in repelling the North than preserving slavery, which he opposed. He joined the secessionary movement in opposition to the Union's invasion, not support of slavery.

Furthermore, as Hummel points out, toward the end of the war "aboard a steamer in Hampton Roads, Virginia, the President and William Seward informally met with Alexander Stephens and two other Confederate commissioners. Lincoln offered an armistice that left open possible compensation for former slaveholders in the South, in spite of the certain objections that Radical Republicans would raise. He appeared to have elevated slavery's abolition into one of the North's war goals, but he and Seward simultaneously hinted that the southern states, if they rejoined the Union, could prevent or postpone the ratification of an antislavery amendment. The Republican President was inflexible on one condition, however. Reuniting the coutnry was still non-negotiable.

"Jefferson Davis summarily rejected Lincoln's demands, yet he might have given in on southern emancipation in return for Southern independence. His countrymen were already debating the revolutionary expedient of arming slaves to fight for the Confederacy, even though they knew that this meant an end to their peculiar institution. As early as August 1863, an editorial in the Jackson Mississippian declared that slavery should not be 'a barrier to our independence. If it is found in the way ââ?¬â?? if it proves an insurmountable object of the achievement of our liberty and separate nationality, away with it! Let it perish!' This was a drastic step, but 'we must make up our minds to one solemn duty, the first duty of the patriot, and that is to save ourselves from the rapacious North, whatever the cost.'" (280-281)

It seems to me quite clear that many Southerners were less afraid of the Union's stand on slavery (it had slavery in four of its states, sent freed slaves back to the South throughout the war, and was led by a president who said repeatedly that abolition was not his agenda), than they were of Lincoln's protectionism and despotism. The Union was less a free-state than Britain was during the American Revolution, and it was much more protectionist and tyrannical in its trade policies and violations of civil liberties than was Britain in its treatment of the American revolutionaries. But rooting for the Americans in their secession against Britain, even the slave-holding ones, isn't necessarily a defense of all the evils they committed.

Yes, the first states to secede said slavery was their motivation. The states themselves, like all states, cannot speak for all the people in their jurisdiction. (And even the Declaration of Independence complains about the "savage" Indians; once the American Revolution was over the U.S. was quite murderous to this group of people. This doesn't mean the whole American secession from Britain was unjust.)

Many Southerners took up arms not against abolitionism, but against a ruthless Union army and the tyrannical regime it attempted to preserve, at the cost of the principles of the American Revolution, many innocent lives and many liberties. Those who did so do not deserve to be characterized as defenders of slavery. Many of them weren't.

The people I know who supposedly "defend the Confederacy" have no sympathy with slavery, nor do they think it was a wise choice to form the CSA, nor even to go to war with the Union, nor even necessarily to secede. Meanwhile, there are "libertarians" out there who think the Civil War was justifiable.

We all know that no libertarians think chattel slavery was libertarian. And yet there are many who think the war, including its draft, murder and mayhem, was libertarian. That's troubling.

Sorry. Forgot to give my name in the above posting.

Apologies to Patrick for the url problem. I find that I always leave a space after a URL before putting in a comma or a period. Otherwise, the punctuation is incorporated into the URL. You don't need the special tags, just the URL and it converts it into a linkable address. (I'm not that sophisticated about such matters, so that's about all I know.)

Jeff Riggenbach has spoken too loosely, I believe. He writes,

"In a free society, on one's own property, or on the property of a consenting owner, one may say anything one damned well pleases."

What one says can be a part of a criminal act; if you threaten a person, for example, you are speaking, but not "only" speaking. Your speech is a part of a threat. The threat is a violation of rights, even if the gun that is held to one's head is not discharged. Indeed, if one hears a threat and considers it credible, one can react and harm the one making the threat, even if it turns out that he had no weapon or that the gun was merely a toy.

So, in a free society, in "on one's own property, or on the property of a consenting owner," one may not say to another person, "Go and kill Ralph Jackson; here is his address; you will find a gun hidden in his mailbox," when that speech is not a part of a joke or a play, but is a part of a plan to commit murder, no matter how well one is pleased by saying it. Thus, it is not the case, that, "on one's own property, or on the property of a consenting owner, one may say anything one damned well pleases."

Jeff Riggenbach's remarks might be correct if it were the case that human actions were describable only in corporeal, spatial, and physical terms; thus, if speech were merely the expulsion of air that is modulated by the merely physical movements of lips and tongues, then it would be hard to characterize speech as an element of a rights violation. But if that were the case, one could not speak about the matter at all. The fact that we can speak about such things is evidence that speech has meaning, that is, that it is a part of a complex intentional whole that endows what would otherwise be mere movements with significance. Planning a kidnapping on my own property is criminal, regardless of whether the kidnapping ever takes place and regardless of whether the body of the one who does the planning and speaks the orders actually comes into contact with the body of the one kidnapped. Intentions matter.

To tie that in to the act of secession, if an act of secession is a part of a plan to kidnap or to maintain in slavery a group of innocent people, then it is not justified. If, on the other hand, it is a part of a plan to stop supporting slavery (as the secession of the northern states from the union would have been), then it can be justified. (Other conditions may apply, of course.) Similarly if it is a part of a plan to remove oneself from tyrannical rule. That does not apply to the decision of the South Carolina convention, which was (as noted above) moved to preserve slavery against a threat that it might be abolished.

This is slightly off topic, but I can't resist. Tiny Tim here and elsewhere on this blog frequently rails against the Rothbardians' "Leninist" strategy. So this passage from Tuesday's Washington Post article on Cato's role in the Social Security debate caught my eye:

"In the fall of 1983, Cato made clear that it was preparing for a protracted fight. It published a paper by Heritage Foundation scholars Stuart M. Butler and Peter Germanis that called for 'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it.' They compared the drive to Nikolai Lenin's effort to undermine capitalism: 'Lenin well knew to be a successful revolutionary one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform.' "

I presume that Tiny Tim was referring, not to the idea of being patient and undertaking long-temr planning, but rather to the cadre strategy that I discussed with Murray Rothbard many times and that I came to reject as both inappropriate and repulsive. Rothbard frequently quipped that "Fewer but better is better," i.e., that one had constantly to purge out those with deviant thoughts (as defined by MNR) to find the true cadre who could be relied upon to play their role. That is a strategy that may be appropriate to what Lenin accomplished, viz. the seizure of absolute power, but it is not appropriate to what libertarians favor, which is the elimination of absolute power and universal respect for the equal rights of all.

Tom: Yup. But don't forget the other part of the strategy - infiltrating/influencing other groups to make them politically subserviant to the cadre.

Don't you see the connection between the strategy and their kkkrazy connections with racists like the League of the South and he Council of Conservative Citizens?

Stupid, sick and unlibertarian, the hallmarks of Rothbardianism.

Anthony Gregory --- was the CSA despotic? Was the CSA a tyranny? If not, what do YOU call a State which holds half its population in chains?

"Anthony Gregory --- was the CSA despotic? Was the CSA a tyranny?"

Yes and yes, of course. But the CSA is not the same as the people of who lived under it, even if many of those people shared with the CSA the goal of secession.

Putting this in context your question of whether it was "wrong for the People's Republic of Vietnam to invade Cambodia to overthrow Pol Pot", I will say that obviously the Khmer Rouge was despotic and totalitarian. But I'm guessing many Cambodians fought back against the Vietnamese, not to affirm the values of the Cambodian regime, but to oppose the invasion which did, undeniably, kill people and have despotic intentions. (Interestingly, the U.S. government supported the Khmer Rouge in that conflict, rather than the Vietnamese ââ?¬â?? or the actual people of Cambodia, otherwise it is unexpl