“Classical Liberalism” is a Myth

[Chris]

This is an interesting argument. It comes from what is self-described as "we can be called “traditionalist conservatives” or “Christian reactionaries.” Since we agree that Modernity—the fundamental principle of contemporary Western Civilization—is radically defective, we are branded 'far-right.'" What's interesting is the unique European perspective. What's also interesting is he doesn't debunk classical liberalism so much as argue it was ubiquitously American.

“Classical Liberalism” is a Myth

...In nineteenth century Europe there were, essentially, three parties: the conservatives, the liberals, and the radicals. Conservatives sought to defend certain aspects of the old order, most especially the political privileges of the aristocracy, the interests of the landed gentry, and the power and revenue of the established church. Liberals attacked these aspects of the old order by demanding political equality, free trade, and disestablishment. Radicals attacked these aspects of the old order and demanded, in addition, economic equality (and in some cases libertine license).

There were no European-style conservatives in the United States because there was no aristocracy, no landed gentry, and no established church. I am aware that the United States had an “aristocracy” and “landlords,” and that for several decades some states had an “established church,” but none of these were remotely comparable to what existed in Europe. Such conservatives as were present at the founding of the United States were called Tories, and they either emigrated to Canada or England, or learned to hold their tongue.

Setting aside a small (but always growing) radical minority, every American was a political and economic liberal. They may have opposed direct election of senators and supported the tariff, but these were concessions to the realities of a fallen world, and not repudiation of core dogmas. Southern slaveholders defended slavery on the liberal grounds of property rights and constitutional law.

And when everyone is, essentially, a political and economic liberal, there is no need for a word to denote a political and economic liberal. Indeed, when radicalism became a real force with the great immigration wave of the late nineteenth century, Americans used the word American to mean liberal. Beginning around 1880, political and economic liberalism was called Americanism.

...But this is not my concern here. My concern is to argue that, so far as the United States is concerned, there was never a time when the word “liberal” simply meant a proponent of free markets and limited government. This sort of “classical liberalism” was more or less ubiquitous in the United States, so its proponents were simply called American. So far as the United States is concerned, a liberal has always been a culture warrior, and it is simple paltering with history to pretend otherwise. As a culture warrior, the purpose of the American liberal has always been to loosen, or “liberalize,” religious and moral strictures and disciplines.

[Mister D]

I do agree that what we call modern liberalism or progressivism is not a different animal. It is not a case of a 'wrong turn', so to speak, or a corruption but rather of the logical development of ideas and ideals. I also agree that liberalism has always been the dominant force in American society but I do think the European critique is sometimes overstated. Grossly so at times. For example, does the OP really mean to suggest that the Old South didn't retain a more traditional cast of mind than the shopkeepers of New England and the larger commercial society of the north? If that war represented anything it was of the final victory of quantity over quality. That is, the final victory of commercial values over heritage, hierarchy and aristocratic values.

Interesting blog though. Love the de Maistre sig.

[Chris]

Yes, but modern liberalism/progressivism were/are Radicals who "demanded, in addition, economic equality (and in some cases libertine license)." These days, ultimately, social equality.

[Ethereal]

Southern slaveholders defended slavery on the liberal grounds of property rights and constitutional law.

Yea, except liberalism is premised on the equal rights of all men, so it makes little sense to call their defense of slavery a "liberal" one, especially when slavery as an institution was thousands of years old and was always based on the slave's status as legal property.

The actual "liberal" arguments pertaining to slavery were elucidated by figures like Lysander Spooner whose essays form the fullest and deepest realization of the ideals of classical liberalism. Coincidentally, the ideals contained within those essays bear virtually no resemblance to what is presently described as "liberal".

[Chris]

Southern slaveholders defended slavery on the liberal grounds of property rights and constitutional law.

Yea, except liberalism is premised on the equal rights of all men, so it makes little sense to call their defense of slavery a "liberal" one, especially when slavery as an institution is thousands of years old and was always based on the slave's status as legal property.

The actual "liberal" arguments pertaining to slavery were elucidated by figures like Lysander Spooner whose essays form the fullest and deepest realization of the ideals of classical liberalism. Coincidentally, the ideals contained within those essays bear virtually no resemblance to what is presently described as "liberal".

I figured the OP would be controversial.

Christians defended slavery and were instrumental in abolition.

[Ethereal]

I figured the OP would be controversial.

Christians defended slavery and were instrumental in abolition.

Indeed, which goes to show you that "Christianity" is really a hodgepodge of competing interpretations. Thomas Jefferson considered himself a Christian even though he expressly rejected the divinity of Jesus, for example. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, Jefferson was an abolitionist.

[Chris]

Indeed, which goes to show you that "Christianity" is really a hodgepodge of competing interpretations. Thomas Jefferson considered himself a Christian even though he expressly rejected the divinity of Jesus, for example. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, Jefferson was an abolitionist.

I balked at the line you cited myself, and some others. Speaking of slavery and constitutional law, Hadley Arkes, Beyond the Constitution, looks at how Lincoln extended the Constitution with Declaration-based natural law to argue against slavery.

[Ethereal]

I balked at the line you cited myself, and some others. Speaking of slavery and constitutional law, Hadley Arkes, Beyond the Constitution, looks at how Lincoln extended the Constitution with Declaration-based natural law to argue against slavery.

The only problem with that narrative is that Lysander Spooner had already made a well-known constitutional argument against slavery which the establishment Republicans like Lincoln roundly ignored.

[Mister D]

Indeed, which goes to show you that "Christianity" is really a hodgepodge of competing interpretations. Thomas Jefferson considered himself a Christian even though he expressly rejected the divinity of Jesus, for example. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, Jefferson was an abolitionist.

He could have considered himself a China-man and he would have been just as accurate. He wasn't a Christian. It is true that there are many varieties of Christianity but the various sects share a core. It's kind of like liberalism in that respect.

[Ethereal]

A LETTER TO CHARLES SUMNER.

Boston, Oct. 12, 1864.

Hon. Charles Sumner,

Sir:

Some four or five weeks ago, as I was in conversation with Dr. S. G. Howe and James M. Stone, they both mentioned that, on their first reading my argument on “the Unconstitutionality of Slavery,” they had been convinced of its truth; and Dr. Howe added, “Sumner always said it was true, but somehow or other he could not think it was practical.”

A few days afterwards I saw Dr. Howe, and repeated to him what I had understood him to say of you, as above, and asked him whether I had understood him correctly. He said that I had; “that is, he had understood you to say, in effect, that you did not see how my argument could be met.” I gave him some of my reasons for wishing his explicit testimony on the point, and he added, “I think I cannot be mistaken about it.” He finally said, “I will put the question distinctly to him tomorrow.”

On the 23d ult. I met him again, and he said that he did put the question to you the next day, in this way: “Mr. Sumner, I have heretofore understood you to say that Mr. Spooner’s position was logical, and that you did not see how it could be answered;” and appealed to you to know whether he had understood you correctly. He said you acknowledged that he had, and that you added that “a judge, who was inclined to decide doubtful questions in favor of liberty, would be obliged to decide that question [of the constitutionality of slavery] in the same way.”

At this last conversation, Francis W. Bird was present, and corroborated Dr. Howe’s statement by saying that you had made a similar statement about my argument to him, at Washington, some few years ago. He added that he said to you, “Why, then, in Heaven’s name, do you not take that position?” And that you made no reply?

In the foregoing account I have given faithfully the substance of their testimony, and very nearly their precise words, as taken down immediately after the last conversation.

I cannot doubt that their statements are true, for I had testimony, nearly as direct and conclusive, to the same point, a dozen years ago, from two or three different sources.

Since December 1851, you have been under oath, as a Senator, to support the Constitution; and have made the subject of Slavery your principal topic of discussion; and have made, during all that time, the loudest professions of devotion to liberty. Yet during all the same period you have been continually conceding that the constitution recognized the Slaveholder’s right of property in his slaves; that those held in slavery had no rights under the constitution; and that the general government could not interfere for their liberation.

It now appears from the testimony of Dr. Howe and Mr. Bird, that all these concessions against liberty, have been made in violation of your own convictions of truth, and consequently in violation of your official oath; and that while for a dozen years, you have been making the most bombastic pretensions of zeal for freedom, you have really been, all that time, a deliberately perjured traitor to the constitution, to liberty, and to truth.

And this you have been, that you might be a Senator from Massachusetts, rather than remain in private life, and do your part towards educating the people into a knowledge of the true character of the constitution. And having once entered the Senate through the door of perjury, and treason to liberty, you have been obliged to adhere to that position, because, by advocating the truth, you would be convicting yourself of your previous falsehood.

A Senator, who, from such motives, with loud professions of liberty on his lips, falsifies, in behalf of slavery, the constitution of his country, which he has sworn to support, is as base a traitor as any professed soldier of liberty can be, who should, for money, deliver up a post which he had sworn to defend. This treason, it appears, you have been continually guilty of for twelve long years; and your ostentatious professions of zeal for liberty during that time, have, as I think, been made, in great part, with a view to hide the real treason you were committing.

My argument, in its leading features, was published in 1845. And several additions to, and confirmations of it, have been made at intervals since.

If that argument is true, slavery, from its first introduction into this country, to this time, has never had any legal or constitutional existence; but has been a mere abuse, tolerated by the strongest party, without any color of legality, except what was derived from false interpretations of the constitution, and from practices, statutes, and adjudications, that were in plain conflict with the fundamental constitutional law. And these views have been virtually confessed to be true by John C. Calhoun, James M. Mason, Jefferson Davis, and many other Southern men; while such professed advocates of liberty as Charles Sumner, Henry Wilson, William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, and the like, have been continually denying them.

Had all those men at the North, who believed these ideas to be true, promulgated them, as it was their plain and obvious duty to do, it is reasonable to suppose that we should long since have had freedom, without shedding one drop of blood; certainly without one tithe of the blood that has now been shed; for the slaveholders would never have dared, in the face of the world, to attempt to overthrow a government that gave freedom to all, for the sake of establishing in its place one that should make slaves of those who, by the existing constitution, were free. But so long as the North, and especially so long as the professed (though hypocritical) advocates of liberty, like those named, conceded the constitutional right of property in slaves, they gave the slaveholders the full benefit of the argument that they were insulted, disturbed, and endangered in the enjoyment of their acknowledged constitutional rights; and that it was therefore necessary to their honor, security, and happiness that they should have a separate government. And this argument, conceded to them by the North, has not only given them strength and union among themselves, but has given them friends, both in the North and among foreign nations; and has cost the nation hundreds of thousands of lives, and thousands of millions of treasure.

Upon yourself, and others like you, professed friends of freedom, who, instead of promulgating what you believed to be the truth, have, for selfish purposes, denied it, and thus conceded to the slaveholders the benefit of an argument to which they had no claim,—upon your heads, more even, if possible, than upon the slaveholders themselves, (who have acted only in accordance with their associations, interests, and avowed principles as slaveholders.) rests the blood of this horrible, unnecessary, and therefore guilty, war.

Your concessions, as to the pro-slavery character of the constitution, have been such as, if true, would prove the constitution unworthy of having one drop of blood shed in its support. They have been such as to withhold from the North all the benefit of the argument, that a war for the constitution was a war for liberty. You have thus, to the extent of your ability, placed the North wholly in the wrong, and the South wholly in the right. And the effect of these false positions in which the North and the South have respectively been placed, not only with your consent, but, in part, by your exertions, has been to fill the land with blood.

The South could, consistently with honor, and probably would, long before this time, and without a conflict, have surrendered their slavery to the demand of the constitution, (if that had been pressed upon them,) and to the moral sentiment of the world; while they could not with honor, or at least certainly would not, surrender anything to a confessedly unconstitutional demand, especially when coming from mere demagogues, who were so openly unprincipled as to profess the greatest moral abhorrence of slavery, and at the same time, for the sake of office, swear to support it, by swearing to support a constitution which they declared to be its bulwark.

You, and others like you have done more, according to your abilities, to prevent the peaceful abolition of slavery, than any other men in the nation; for while honest men were explaining the true character of the constitution, as an instrument giving freedom to all, you were continually denying it, and doing your utmost (and far more than any avowed pro slavery man could do) to defeat their efforts. And it now appears that all this was done by you in violation of your own convictions of truth.

In your pretended zeal for liberty, you have been urging on the nation to the most frightful destruction of human life; but your love of liberty has never yet induced you to declare publicly, but has permitted you constantly to deny, a truth that was sufficient for, and vital to, the speedy and peaceful accomplishment of freedom. You have, with deliberate purpose, and through a series of years, betrayed the very citadel of liberty, which you were under oath to defend. And there has been, in the country, no other treason at all comparable with this.

That such is the character that history will give you, I have very little doubt. And I wish you to understand that there is one who has long believed such to be your true character, and that he now has the proof of it. And unless you make some denial or explanation of the testimony of Dr. Howe and Mr. Bird, I shall feel at liberty to use it at my discretion.

LYSANDER SPOONER.