Libertarians on the Civil War and Slavery

Not all libertarians are in agreement on southern secession, slavery and the civil war. See this interesting article and the comments at the Volokh conspiracy. I agree with paragraphs I. and IV. Other than murder/genocide, slavery is the greatest violation of natural law rights possible.

The forgotten Corwin Amendment.

In a last ditch effort to prevent the Civil War, Congress proposed the Corwin Amendment: “The Corwin Amendment was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the United States Congress on March 2, 1861. Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin offered the amendment during the closing days of the Second Session of the 36th Congress in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. The proposed amendment would have forbidden attempts to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to "abolish or interfere" with the "domestic institutions" of the states, including "persons held to labor or service" (a reference to slavery). Corwin's resolution emerged as the House of Representatives's version of an earlier, identical proposal in the Senate offered by Senator William H. Seward of New York. However, the newly formed Confederate States of America was totally committed to independence, and so it ignored the proposed Corwin Amendment. This proposed amendment is technically still before the states for ratification, because it was submitted to the states without a time limit. Since the Thirteenth Amendment (which abolished slavery) was adopted, the Corwin Amendment has had no realistic chance of being adopted. Text No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.[1] Proposal by the Congress On February 28, 1861, the House of Representatives approved the resolution by a vote of 133–65.[2] On March 2, the United States Senate also adopted it, 24–12.[3] Since proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, 132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. As seven slave states had already decided to secede from the Union, those states chose not to vote on the Corwin Amendment. Outgoing President James Buchanan endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unusual step of signing it. Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, supported the Corwin Amendment: "[H]olding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."[4][5] Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln penned a letter to each governor asking for them to support the Corwin Amendment.[6] However, Presidents play no formal role in the amendment process.[7] Ratifications Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, consideration of the Corwin Amendment then shifted to the state legislatures. On May 13, 1861, the Ohio General Assembly became the first to ratify the amendment. The next to ratify was the Maryland General Assembly in January 1862. Later that year, Illinois lawmakers approved the amendment while they were sitting in session as a state constitutional convention rather than as a legislature, thus causing some to see this particular ratification as possibly invalid.[4] Technically, the Corwin Amendment is still pending.” Excerpts from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_amendment It is not clear if the amendment would have covered territories. Arguably not. The federal government controlled territories. However, arguably a territory could have voted to become a slave state, and then slavery would have in that new state would have been protected by the amendment. Arguably, too many in the South were already committed to secession, and war if necessary. This amendment was arguably too little and too late. Perhaps an amendment similar to the one proposed in the post below might have worked if proposed early enough.

More on the Civil War

As we remember the beginning of the Civil War/War between the States/ I offer a few more historical comments. Sections of Lincoln’s Mar. 4, 1861, First Inaugural Address are presented below. The address states that the issue dividing the country is, for him, not slavery per se, but extension of slavery into new U.S. territories. Certainly there were abolitionists who wanted slavery abolished everywhere (e.g. John Brown). However, such abolitionists were probably in a minority in the North. Lincoln promised to enforce the fugitive slave act. Protection of then-existing slavery and/or expansion of slavery into new territories were the primary motive for secession. Lincoln did not challenge the former. Lincoln declares that unilateral secession was unlawful. Why not call a constitutional convention to deal with this issue? I doubt that most northerners, most of whom also embraced white supremacy, wanted war to end slavery. More on this later, but there is a good chance that this amendment would have been approved, the country and territories divided, and perhaps a new federal government limited to issues of national defense created. We will never know! Lincoln stated: “I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: "Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes." I now reiterate these sentiments: and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in anywise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause — as cheerfully to one section, as to another. There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: "No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole constitution — to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause, "shall be delivered up," their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law, by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, — that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.”