As for me, yes, I'm a native Texan but an Air Force brat who left just a few months after birth for my Dad's new assignment in Cape Cod, just about a half hour's drive to either side of the families of my folks. My next 4 siblings were born there, my last two in Florida and South Carolina. I was just entering my teens when Dad, after a year in Southeast Asia, got his next assignment in south Texas. I grew up in an integrated military; my best friend Henry, in fifth grade, was black. A large plurality of fellow students in high school and college were Latino, including my best friend at OLL, and I asked out some Latinas while in graduate school at UH.
I was politically a social/modern liberal during my early adult years (although an eclectic one who was pro-life and a fiscal conservative). I did recoil from political correctness even then. I resented being forced to attend an OLL lecture from an obscure Alex Haley--and heard the story of Roots years before millions of Americans.
But basically I had been brought up with the conventional story of how Lincoln had abolished the institutional evil of slavery. So what happened to me? How did I come to reject said mythology? Had I stumbled into white supremacy websites? Do I own Confederate memorabilia, including paintings, books or flags extolling the Old South? Nope. The evidence and general principles took me to a different perspective of the Civil War. It did not change my mind about the evil of slavery. I did not doubt many in the Confederacy were vested in an abominable institution and were politically powerful. But arguing that hundreds of thousands of Southerners died to protect the interests of a few wealthy plantation owners is a hopelessly naive understanding of human nature.
The whole question of secession was not exclusively a Southern one. Even Northerners had discussed the concept for other considerations. I'm not going to give an exhaustive history here but just a simple example to make the point: I recently mentioned the Whiskey Rebellion. The Pennsylvania rebels discussed seceding and hooking up with a European power like Britain or Spain. The "save the union" radicals want to argue a contract is double-sided and you can't simply unilaterally break a contract. On Twitter, I compared that point of view to a wife beater going after his estranged wife, arguing he was defending the institution of marriage.
Were the reasons for states leaving the union "good enough"? Certainly the South felt itself increasingly marginalized and dominated by a more populated, industrialized North; in fact, Lincoln won the Presidency without a single Southern electoral vote. Tariffs had been a grievance for decades, particularly during the Jackson Administration. Protectionist tariffs not only increased prices but threatened trading partner retaliation at the expense of Southern exports (particularly in-demand cotton). Moreover, these revenues were spent disproportionately at the expense of the South. Yes, slavery was also a factor, especially when some Northern states were reluctant to help enforce the Fugitive Slave Laws.
It's really sad when critics of the Civil War, including McClanahan and myself, have to go out of our way to note that we find the institution of slavery an abomination and when we criticize the war, it's not because we're "pro-slavery" or approve of any/all rationales for Southern states to secede, certainly slavery being one of the primary and immoral factors. But as I have repeatedly blogged and tweeted, Lincoln explicitly noted in his first inaugural address that he did not have authority to abolish slavery where it existed in the South; in fact, he was willing to support a constitutional amendment to guarantee that. What he would not accept was losing his tariff revenues from the South.
In fact, the Constitution would not abolish slavery until the end of 1865, after the Civil War ended and Lincoln had been assassinated. So arguing the war was all about slavery simply is a state of denial. And I would argue, without the Confederate states, the Union would be able to pass the 13th Amendment and have it ratified. The Confederate states, sharing a long border with the North, would see enforcement costs skyrocketing, lowering the value of any slave equity. The war also saw global suppliers filling in the gap caused by plummeting Southern cotton exports, and certain markets, like Britain and France, which themselves had outlawed slavery and were reluctant to buy slave-produced goods. Not to mention two-thirds of Southern households didn't own slaves, and free labor had to compete against slave labor. So many of us believe the collapse of slavery in the South was inevitable, just like it did 20 years later in Brazil, without a bloody civil war.
This is not a case where the South/Confederacy sought to overthrow the US government. They simply decided to go their own way peaceably. Southern aggression would have been suicidal; the North was more populous, prosperous, and economically diversified, and it had a standing, experienced military, especially a Navy. And in what world, less than a century past the Revolutionary War, was the Union in a position to argue against the right of the South to secede? Did the British approve of US reasons to revolt against the Empire? If those in the states ever had the right to join the Union, they surely had the right to reject the Union. When did they lose their rights? How can you argue that people have the right to voluntarily assemble, but not the through the states in which they reside? It's fundamentally inconsistent.
From the standpoint of the South, they were concerned about the tyranny of the majority, which ironically made them feel enslaved to the Union/North. They were willing to discuss certain separation logistics like the reimbursement for existing federal facilities and the like. But make no mistake: using the pretext of Ft. Sumter, Lincoln initiated hostilities, declaring the secession an insurrection and calling for militia. This action leads to 4 more states seceding and joining the new Confederacy, including Virginia. Most of the war takes place in the Confederate states, including prominently Virginia. (In fact, Gen. Lee in 1863 asks permission from President Davis to invade a Northern state (Pennsylvania) in part to relieve the pressure on his Virginia army.) So the war often goes by different names in the South, e.g., the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
We libertarians espouse the Non-Aggression Principle. A key proto-libertarian was the abolitionist Lysander Spooner. Let me quote here from De Santis' article:
[O]n the outset of the War Between the States, Spooner defended the Confederate States of America. In much contrast to other abolitionists and war hawks in the North, Spooner despised the Republican Party, and the Union war effort. He argued that the war wasn’t over slavery, but for the Northern politicians to maintain an illegitimate dominion over the South....Spooner wrote in No Treason, “the late war has practically demonstrated that our government rests upon force – as much so as any government that ever existed.” and “In proportion to her wealth and population, the North has probably expended more money and blood to maintain her power over an unwilling people, than any other government ever did.” The general theme of Spooner’s argument in this essay is, that a government of consent necessarily means the consent of every individual human being that is to live under that government is required for that government to be called voluntary and free and that it is the right of every individual to terminate any voluntary association with each other if they have the desire to do so. This principle could extend to individuals acting in concert i.e., States seceding from the Union...The sixth essay entitled, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority is the longest and hardest hitting essay. Spooner explicitly states that, “The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud…” He declares that the Union was motivated solely to exploit the Southern economy for the benefit of the corrupt Northern businesses that were the real power behind the Republican Party. Spooner argues that slavery could have been abolished peacefully, the war could have been prevented and, “a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result.”Andrade's essay also points out some blemishes on the conventional view of the Civil War (note that Andrade is sympathetic to the anti-slavery pretext for the Union war effort):
This historical scenario [post-WWI setup for the rise of Naziism] is comparable to the American Civil War. ... Yet, once the South was defeated, the North failed to properly follow the guidelines of ius post bellum, the moral conduct after a war has ended. The terms of Reconstruction were harsh on the South. After Lincoln’s assassination, so-called “Carpetbaggers” from the North made their way to the South, easily exploiting both freed blacks and impoverished whites (whose property was largely confiscated by Yankee victors). Carpetbaggers easily held onto power, as they were given full political rights. The Fourteenth Amendment, while incorporating black Americans as citizens with voting rights, did not extend political rights to those who had originally participated in the secessionist rebellion, thus excluding from politics those who, precisely, were now the victims of exploitation. An amnesty for the rebels would have been more morally wise; it finally came in 1872 (and never in full terms), perhaps too little, too late.
Yet, Lincoln’s behavior during the war was from moral. He authorized General William Tecumseh Sherman’s infamous “March to the Sea,” during which Northern armies ravished the South. Sherman engaged in scorched Earth tactics, destroying civilians’ property, and allowing his soldiers to loot and rape as they made their way from Atlanta to Savannah. This is absolutely forbidden by ius in bello (the moral conduct during war).
Lincoln’s abuses were not confined to the South. He cracked down heavily on the free press in the North, shutting down many newspapers critical of the war effort. Lincoln also imprisoned the mayor of Baltimore, Maryland, out of fear that he could promote an assembly that would declare Maryland a secessionist state. Most crucially, he suspended habeas corpus, the right to due process. This enabled Lincoln to make many arbitrary detentions....
But the truth is that he never believed in racial equality, as another infamous quote makes clear: “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.” In that very same speech, Lincoln proclaimed that, “there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.” Indeed, throughout his presidency, Lincoln considered the project that, after the war, black Americans should be forcibly removed from America, and settle in places such as Cuba or Liberia, simply because different races could not share one country.When McClanahan contemptuously condemns (rightly so) the current presentist jihad against Confederate statues, monuments, and symbols (like flags), he simply dismisses them, saying the vandals don't even bother reading the descriptions explaining them. I wanted more specifics and found this relevant essay by Philip Leigh.
Leigh points out:
Statue critics say the Confederate soldier fought for slavery. But fewer than 30% of Southern families owned slaves. In truth, according to historian William C. Davis, “The widespread Northern myth that Confederates went to the battlefield to perpetuate slavery is just that, a myth. Their letters and diaries, in the tens of thousands, reveal again and again that they fought because their Southern homeland was invaded. . .”If you look at the descriptions of the monument, you'll see things like this:
- "To the sons of the university who entered the War of 1861–65 in answer to the call of their country and whose lives taught the lesson of their great commander [Robert E. Lee] that duty is the sublimest word in the English language."
- "To the Memory of the Soldiers and Sailors of the Southern Confederacy. Who fought to uphold the right declared by the pen of Jefferson and achieved by the sword of Washington. With sublime self-sacrifice they battled to preserve the independence of the states which was won from Great Britain, and to perpetuate the constitutional government which was established by the fathers."
And do you recall the origins of the celebration of Memorial Day?
Memorial Day evolved after Federal occupation troops observed Southern women spreading flowers upon the graves of their husbands, sons and brothers during the war. A year after the war the ladies of Columbus, Mississippi strewed flowers on the graves of both the Confederate and Union dead in the town’s Friendship Cemetery. Their gesture started a movement that spread and in the North May 30th was selected as National Memorial Day in 1868.
So why did you see waves of statues years after the war's end? Was it nostalgia for the Lost Cause, for a return of the days of slavery? No. There are multiple reasons: initial political opposition by Union veterans, depressed economic issues in the war's aftermath which hobbled the collection of donations, desire for veterans and war widows and their children to honor their kin, the war dead and veterans for their sacrifices in defending their homeland. As Southerners stepped up in disproportionate numbers in subsequent US war engagements, there was a desire to recognize the service of their predecessors, particularly on major war anniversaries. Regional troops proudly planted the Confederate battle flag, e.g., following major victories in WWII.
For me, as I recently tweeted, it is important for us to remember the war. Over 600K died in its duration, more than in any other campaign in American history. It was, in my view, an unnecessary war. It's a living reminder of what happens when politicians make tragic decisions: we must never forget. It's the same reason why Germany left standing concentration camps. Not to glorify the memory of Hitler, but a reminder of the real costs of the State.
My opposition to the movement against the Confederate symbols is not racially motivated. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
