How Libertarians Ought to Think About the U.S. Civil War
Pacific Legal Foundation
Reason Papers, Vol. 28, pp. 61-83, 2006
According to many libertarians, the Union's victory in the Civil War represented a betrayal of American Constitution and of the fundamental principles of American political philosophy. These writers contend that secession is a legitimate, constitutional action under the Constitution and that, despite the evil nature of slavery, the federal government had no authority to prevent the southern states from leaving the union. In this paper, I contend that this argument is deeply flawed, and rests on a confusion between secession (a purportedly constitutional act) and revolution (an exercise of coercive force considered legitimate in libertarian political theory only when engaged in as a form self-defense). To counter this confusion, I propose a systematic, two-step analysis: first, does a state have the legal authority under the United States Constitution, to secede unilaterally? And, second, if secession is unconstitutional, was the Confederacy's action in 1861 justified as an act of revolution? I contend that the answer to both questions is no.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 29
Keywords: Civil war, secession, libertarianism, slavery, paleo-conservatism, sovereignty, state's rights
JEL Classification: K10, K19Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: October 1, 2006
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.641 seconds