The Civil War [sic] Exposes Statists

July 28, 2013 11:53 AM ~  
You can always tell who is really a statist by how they talk about the Civil War [sic]. If you talk about the evils of the USA and how they shouldn't have invaded the CSA, well then you are accused by statists of defending the CSA (and implicitly slavery.) This shows a complete ignorance of liberty, history, and the principles of individual rights.

The CSA, like all governments, and like our modern government, was controlled by a handful of elites who depended on slavery to maintain their power and privilege. However, most of the people living in the South were hurt by the policies of the USA in the 60 or so years leading up to the war. Tariffs on agricultural exports made the cost of doing business so high that only rich plantation owners could prosper, and tariffs on mechanical imports from the UK made the cost of capital improvements so high that there was little to no improvement in agricultural techniques in the South - something that ended slavey peacefully in the rest of the civilized world.

The vast majority of the people of the South were not slave owners. They were poor tenant farmers, freed slaves, merchants, tradesmen, sailors, etc that generally weren't in control of the state apparatus (weren't even allowed to vote) and actually would have been better off without slavery. The people of power and privilege back then were the only ones who had slaves, and that's very similar to the way things are done today. The well connected, uber-rich businessmen, along with the politicians, cooperate with each other to rob the people of their labor (taxes) then profit from it personally (subsidies, insider dealings, etc). Now don't get me wrong: I have no problem with the uber-rich - I only have a problem with the ones who acquire wealth through crony dealings. The slavery of 200 years ago was more brutal and direct than the "slavery" of today, but the same principle was at work.

Anyhow, the main point here and the most important factor in the debate about the conquest of the South is that the people of the South were 100% justified in defending their homeland. The people of the South, as a whole, held the morally superior position as the USA was the aggressor in the war. The states of the South seceded for many valid reasons and for one invalid one (to protect slavery), which is a peaceful action. Then the North, suffering from a drastic loss in revenues and trade partners, invaded. Then the people of the South joined forces with the new state of the South (the CSA) to defend their homeland.

Long story short, no matter what you think about slavery ,the fact is that there is a difference between the people and the government, despite what we are all brainwashed with in government schools. The governments of the states of the USA and CSA back in the 1800's were run by the power elites, and most people weren't even allowed to vote (not that voting is much better, but still). A statist defends the aggressive actions of the states of the North. A libertarian defends the individual rights of the people of the South, who were fighting against an aggressive invasion.