New review of my book, Defending Dixie's Land, by a distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina, shows, among many other subjects,the American South's libertarian tendencies. "In my time I have written probably 200 or more book reviews. I have never used the comment “you ought to get this book.” I am using it now." https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/defending-dixies-land/#comment-11978
My friend used to own a used bookshop and he had a book on the Confederate Constitution that I wish I would have kept. A few key points I remember.... It was much like our Constitution and it had a second amendment that was identical and it also laid out that the president was to serve a single six-year term.
I go over the changes between the two constitutions in my book! I will say there was multiple changes
I'm afraid I didn't see where the professor showed the "libertarian tendencies" of a region that practiced, supported and defended the antithesis of libertarianism - chattel slavery. Perhaps, you would care to point out the "libertarian tendencies" of the anti-libertarian Antebellum South? (Full disclosure: I'm a lifelong Virginian with libertarian tendencies.)
I have multiple chapters that touch on it! Hard to boil that down for you here. I would say slaves had more rights then we believe, but those who held full citizenship enjoyed libertarian policy and government.
Lol, there's nothing "libertarian" about the Confederacy, dude. Not even close. Race-based chattel slavery is as far from libertarianism as you can possibly get, and that was the entire basis of the Confederacy. It was their reason to for secession (and they said so) and the cornerstone of their "country."
It was almost identical to our own Constitution, word for word . . . except for the further protections for slavery. Which was the whole point.
If that was the reason for the civil war could you please explain to me why the north outlawed slavery in the South but did not simultaneously outlaw it in northern states?
I didn't say it was the reason for the Civil War. I said it was the reason for secession and the reason for the creation of the Confederacy.
Plenty of people try to claim that the civil war was fought over slavery. There's people should also be made aware of the fact that the north outlawed slavery in the South but took no action immediately to do the same thing in the North. Evidently slaves were okay in the North.
Then take up your problems with them. I'm talking about why the South seceded and why the Confederacy was formed -- slavery. See above. But since you will never address these facts, I'll play another game. By the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, where was slavery still legal in the North. Hint: this question is a trap.
I'm well aware of what is true in this case and am willing to discuss it. Sounds like you can't stand the fact that it is true that the Confederacy was primarily motivated, both in seceding and in forming a new nation, by preserving and expanding slavery . . . and said so repeatedly.
Honestly, the only thing that immediately comes to mind is that the South wanted fewer tariffs, which is certainly a libertarian tendency. However, that had nothing to do with their secession. The tariffs that were in place when they seceded were ones that the South had created. There was a new tariff bill that had passed the House, but there weren't enough votes in the Senate to actually pass it until after 7 Southern states seceded. Plus, South Carolina had threatened to secede over tariffs before and none of the other states were willing to join them.
You aren't reading. Please read. I said the South seceded over slavery and that the Confederacy was founded, first and foremost, on slavery -- both preserving and expanding it. Where am I losing you? This is a very simple concept.
Why would they secede over slavery when slavery was still legal in the North and remained so after the north dictated it was illegal in the south?
Because they saw the steps that the US was taking as setting slavery up for its extinction . . . and said so . . . repeatedly. Do you know why Lincoln didn't free the few remaining slaves in the border states but did free the slaves in the South? This is very easy to understand when you give it five seconds of thought. And if they didn't secede over slavery then why did they repeatedly declare that that's exactly what they were doing?
Personally, I think the men who are widely considered the first libertarians, the English Levellers - John Lilburne, Richard Overton, William Walwyn, et al (not the proto-communist True Levellers/Diggers) - expressed the core belief of libertarian philosophy, and it was the core fundamental right that the slaveholding South/Confederacy would not abide: To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature not to be invaded or usurped by any. For every one, as he is himself, so he has a self-propriety, else could he not be himself; and of this no second may presume to deprive any of without manifest violation and affront to the very principles of nature and of the rules of equity and justice between man and man. -- Richard Overton, “An Arrow Against All Tyrants and Tyranny”, October 12, 1646 As I presume you are aware, this sentiment would later be repeated by the likes of John Locke, and it is implicitly expressed, in connection with our social contract, by the Founders in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence. Of course, the United States government, which allowed slavery to exist and continues to violate the right to self-proprietorship with abandon, does not have clean hands here. In fact, it constitutes the greatest threat to that right today.
