Libertarians Didn’t Win the Civil War

In a recent article David Boaz tries to explain the Civil War as a libertarian triumph. One can easily see that ending slavery ought to have been a libertarian end. However, it was accomplished with stunningly anti-libertarian means.

Everyone but me seems to think the latest article from David Boaz is awesome.

In the article, David Boaz tries to explain the Civil War as a libertarian triumph:

If you had to choose, would you rather live in a country with a department of labor and even an income tax or a Dred Scott decision and a Fugitive Slave Act?

Fair enough; one can easily see that ending slavery certainly ought to have been a libertarian end.  However, it was accomplished with stunningly anti-libertarian means (not that I'm complaining; I'm not a libertarian), and by a political coalition -- the Republican coalition -- that held no other libertarian ends.

Look, the Republican party was anti-free trade, for "corporate welfare" to railroads, for a national bank, for expansive executive powers, and wanted to use the federal government's powers to ban marriages not between one man and one woman during the polygamy controversy.  Once the Civil War was over, they pretty much got what they wanted.

So, some liberties and alleged liberties went by the wayside, to create a greater liberty.  "A new birth of freedom," even.  But what I don't see among a lot of libertarians today is the same willingness to make tactical compromises to accomplish their greater ends.  For instance, here's one libertarian's  litmus test for supporting candidates:

...I don’t want to back candidates who support

• the war in Iraq
• the war in Afghanistan
• war with Iran
• the war on drugs
• the constitutional amendment to override state marriage laws and make gay people second-class citizens
• the president’s power to snatch American citizens off the street and hold them without access to a lawyer or a judge
• new restrictions on immigration.

That Libertarian? David Boaz.