• Slavery and War

    Email Print
    Share


    DIGG THIS

    Excerpted
    from a 30,000-word memo to the Volker Fund, 1961.

    The Road
    to Civil War

    The road to
    Civil War must be divided into two parts:

    1. the causes
      of the controversy over slavery leading to secession, and
    2. the immediate
      causes of the war itself.

    The reason
    for such split is that secession need not have led to Civil War,
    despite the assumption to the contrary by most historians.

    The basic root
    of the controversy over slavery to secession, in my opinion, was
    the aggressive, expansionist aims of the Southern "slavocracy."
    Very few Northerners proposed to abolish slavery in the Southern
    states by aggressive war; the objection – and certainly a proper
    one – was to the attempt of the Southern slavocracy to extend
    the slave system to the Western territories. The apologia that the
    Southerners feared that eventually they might be outnumbered and
    that federal abolition might ensue is no excuse; it is the age-old
    alibi for "preventive war." Not only did the expansionist
    aim of the slavocracy to protect slavery by federal fiat in the
    territories as "property" aim to foist the immoral system
    of slavery on Western territories; it even violated the principles
    of states’ rights to which the South was supposedly devoted –
    and which would logically have led to a "popular sovereignty"
    doctrine.

    Actually, with
    Texas in the Union, there was no hope of gaining substantial support
    for slavery in any of the territories except Kansas, and this had
    supposedly been settled by the Missouri Compromise. "Free-Soil"
    principles for the Western territories could therefore have been
    easily established without disruption of existing affairs, if not
    for the continual aggressive push and trouble making of the South.

    If
    Van Buren had been president, he might have been able to drive through
    Congress the free-soil principles of the Wilmot Proviso, and that
    would have been that. As it was, President Taylor’s bill would have
    settled the Western territory problem by simply adopting "popular
    sovereignty" principles in New Mexico, Utah, Oregon, and California
    territories – admitting them all eventually as free states.
    Instead, the unfortunate death of President Taylor, and the accession
    of Fillmore, ended this simple and straightforward solution, and
    brought forth the pernicious so-called "Compromise" of
    1850, which exacerbated rather than reduced interstate tensions
    by adding to the essential Taylor program provisions for stricter
    enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law. Since the Fugitive Slave
    Law not only forced the Northern people to collaborate in what they
    considered – correctly – to be moral crime, but also violated
    Northern state rights, the strict Fugitive Slave Law was a constant
    irritant to the North.

    The shift from
    free-soil principles in the Democratic Party and toward the Compromise
    of 1850 wrecked the old Jacksonian Democracy. The open break became
    apparent in Van Buren and the Free Soil candidacy of 1848; the failure
    of the Democratic Party to take an antislavery stand pushed the
    old libertarians into Free Soil or other alliances, even into the
    new Republican Party eventually: this tragic split in the Democratic
    Party lost it its libertarian conscience and drive.

    Pro-southern
    domination of the Democratic Party in the 1850s, with Pierce and
    Buchanan, the opening up of the Kansas territory to slave expansion
    (or potential slave expansion) in 1854, led to the creation of the
    antislavery Republican Party. One tragedy here is that the surrender
    of the Democrat and Whig parties to the spirit of the Compromise
    of 1850 forced the free-soilers into a new party that was not only
    free soil, but showed dangerous signs (in Seward and others) of
    ultimately preparing for an abolitionist war against the South.
    Thus, Southern trouble making shifted Northern sentiment into potentially
    dangerous channels. Not only that: it also welded in the Republican
    Party a vehicle dedicated, multifold, to old Federalist-Whig principles:
    to high tariffs, to internal improvements and government subsidies,
    to paper money and government banking, etc. Libertarian principles
    were now split between the two parties.

    The
    fantastic Dred Scott decision changed the political scene completely:
    for in it the Supreme Court had apparently outlawed free-soil principles,
    even including the Missouri Compromise. There was now only one course
    left to the lovers of freedom short of open rebellion against the
    Court, or Garrison’s secession by the North from a Constitution
    that had indeed become a "compact with Hell"; and that
    escape hatch was Stephen Douglas’s popular sovereignty doctrine,
    in its "Freeport" corollary: i.e., in quiet, local nullification
    of the Dred Scott decision.

    At this critical
    juncture, the South continued on its suicidal course by breaking
    with Douglas, insistent on the full Dred Scott principle, and leading
    to the victory of their enemy Lincoln. Here again, secession was
    only "preventive," as Lincoln had given no indication
    of moving to repress slavery in the South.

    It is here
    that we must split our analysis of the "causes of the Civil
    War"; for, while this analysis leads, in my view, to a "pro-Northern"
    position in the slavery-in-the-territories struggles of the 1850s,
    it leads, paradoxically, to a "pro-Southern" position
    in the Civil War itself. For secession need not, and should not,
    have been combated by the North; and so we must pin the blame on
    the North for aggressive war against the seceding South. The war
    was launched in the shift from the original Northern position (by
    Garrison included) to "let our erring sisters depart in peace"
    to the determination to crush the South to save that mythical abstraction
    known as the "Union" – and in this shift, we must
    put a large portion of the blame upon the maneuvering of Lincoln
    to induce the Southerners to fire the first shot on Fort Sumter
    – after which point, flag-waving could and did take over.

    The
    War Against the South and Its Consequences

    The Civil War
    was one of the most momentous events in American history, not only
    for its inherent drama and destruction, but because of the fateful
    consequences for America that flowed from it.

    We have said
    above that the War of 1812 had devastating consequences for the
    libertarian movement; indeed, it might be said that it took twenty
    years of devotion and hard work for the Jacksonian movement to undo
    the étatist consequences of that utter failure of a war.
    It is the measure of the statist consequences of the Civil War that
    America never recovered from it: never again was the libertarian
    movement to have a party of its own, or as close a chance at success.
    Hamiltonian neo-Federalism beyond the wildest dreams of even a J.Q.
    Adams had either been foisted permanently on America, or had been
    inaugurated, to be later fulfilled.

    Let us trace
    the leading consequences of the War Against the South: there is,
    first, the enormous toll of death, injury, and destruction. There
    is the complete setting aside of the civilized "rules of war"
    that Western civilization had laboriously been erecting for centuries:
    instead, a total war against the civilian population was launched
    against the South. The symbol of this barbaric and savage oppression
    was, of course, Sherman’s march through Georgia and the rest of
    the South, the burning of Atlanta, etc. (For the military significance
    of this reversion to barbarism, see F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism).
    Another consequence, of course, was the ending of effective states’
    rights, and of the perfectly logical and reasonable right of secession – or,
    for that matter, nullification. From now on, the Union was a strictly
    compulsory entity.

    Further,
    the Civil War foisted upon the country the elimination of Jacksonian
    hard money: the greenbacks established government fiat paper, which
    it took 14 long years to tame; and the National Bank Act ended the
    separation of government from banking, effectively quasi-nationalizing
    and regulating the banking system, and creating an engine of governmentally
    sponsored inflation.

    So ruthlessly
    did the Lincoln administration overturn the old banking system (including
    the effective outlawing of state bank notes) that it became almost
    impossible to achieve a return – impossible that is, without
    a radical and almost revolutionary will for hard money, which did
    not exist. On the tariff, the virtual destruction of the Democratic
    Party led to the foisting of a high, protective tariff to remain
    for a generation – indeed, permanently, for the old prewar low
    tariff was never to return. It was behind this wall of tariff-subsidy
    that the "trusts" were able to form. Further, the administration
    embarked on a vast program of subsidies to favored businesses: land
    grants to railroads, etc. The Post Office was later monopolized
    and private postal services outlawed. The national debt skyrocketed,
    the budget increased greatly and permanently, and taxes increased
    greatly – including the first permanent foisting on America of
    excise taxation, especially on whiskey and tobacco.

    Thus, on every
    point of the old Federalist-Whig vs. Democrat-Republican controversy,
    the Civil War and the Lincoln administration achieved a neo-Federalist
    triumph that was complete right down the line. And the crushing
    of the South, the military Reconstruction period, etc. assured that
    the Democratic Party would not rise again to challenge this settlement
    for at least a generation. And when it did rise, it would have a
    much tougher row to hoe than did Van Buren and Co. in an era much
    more disposed to laissez-faire.

    But
    this was not all: for the Civil War saw also the inauguration of
    despotic and dictatorial methods beyond the dreams of the so-called
    "despots of ’98." Militarism ran rampant, with the arrogant
    suspension of habeas corpus, the crushing and mass arrests in Maryland,
    Kentucky, etc.; the suppression of civil liberties and opposition
    against the war, among the propeace "Copperheads" –
    the persecution of Vallandigham, etc.; and the institution of conscription.
    Also introduced on the American scene at this time was the income
    tax, reluctantly abandoned later, but to reappear. Federal aid to
    education began in earnest and permanently with federal land grants
    for state agricultural colleges. There was no longer any talk, of
    course, about abolition of the standing army or the navy. Almost
    everything, in short, that is currently evil on the American political
    scene, had its roots and its beginnings in the Civil War.

    Because
    of the slavery controversy of the 1850s, there was no longer a single
    libertarian party in America, as the Democratic had been. Now the
    free-soilers had left the Democrat ranks. But, especially after
    Dred Scott had pushed the Douglas "Freeport Doctrine"
    to the fore as libertarian policy, there was hope for a reunited
    Democracy, especially since the Democrat party was still very good
    on all questions except slavery. But the Civil War wrecked all that,
    and monolithic Republican rule could impress its neo-Federalist
    program on America to such an extent as to make it extremely difficult
    to uproot.

    Murray
    N. Rothbard
    (1926–1995) was the author of Man,
    Economy, and State
    , Conceived
    in Liberty
    , What
    Has Government Done to Our Money
    , For
    a New Liberty
    , The
    Case Against the Fed
    , and many
    other books and articles
    . He was
    also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The
    Rothbard-Rockwell Report
    .

    Murray
    Rothbard Archives

    Email Print
    Share
  • Political Theatre

  • LRC Blog

    LRC Podcasts