How Libertarians Ought To Think About The U.S. Civil War
Reason Papers ^ | Spring 2006 | TIMOTHY SANDEFUR
Posted on Monday, September 17, 2007 5:35:27 PM by Delacon
How Libertarians Ought To Think About The U.S. Civil War
By Timothy Sandefur
[Reason Papers vol. 28, pp. 61-83, Spring 2006]
I. Introduction
For decades, outspoken libertarians have seen the Civil War not only as a
historical calamity, but as a political calamity as well. According to many libertarians,
the Union victory in the Civil War, and the presidency of Abraham Lincoln in general,
represented a betrayal of American Constitution and of the fundamental principles of
American political philosophy.
This interpretation rests on two major arguments as well as a variety of more
minor concerns. The more minor concerns include specific critiques of the policies of the
Lincoln Administration, or of the conduct of the War by Union forces. For example,
many libertarians condemn the Union for instituting a military draft, or for suspending
the writ of habeas corpus. There are many of these specific criticisms, which deserve
detailed discussion which cannot be provided here.1 Suffice to say that some of these
criticisms are well-founded; indeed, libertarians deplore war precisely because it tends to
give rise to such evils.
Understanding the Civil War as a matter of political philosophy, however,
requires a systematic, two-step analysis: first, does a state have the legal authority under
the United States Constitution, to secede unilaterally? If the answer to this question is
yes, then the analysis is at an end: if states have the right to secede, the Union was in the
wrong to put down the Confederacy. If, however, the answer is no, then we must proceed
to a second step: even illegal acts, like the American Revolution, are justified by the right
1 For example, it ought to be noted that the Confederacy instituted a military draft as well, and did so before
the Union did. J. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom (New York: Ballantine, 1988) p. 427.
of revolution, so even if the Constitution does prohibit secession, the people of the
southern states had the right to rebel against the Union, if their act was a legitimate act of revolution. It is essential to keep in mind the distinction between secession and
revolution.
As Lincoln wrote, “It might seem, at first thought, to be of little difference
whether the present movement at the South be called ‘secession’ or ‘rebellion.’ The
movers, however, well understand the [*62] difference.”2 Was, then, the Confederate
rebellion a legitimate act of revolution?........................