Libertarians Dispute the Root Causes of the Civil War

I just recently became aware of Jon Stewart's comedic commentary upon the remarks of right-libertarian pundit Andrew Napalitano's remarks on the U.S. Civil War, and Pres. Abraham Lincoln's role in it. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-24-2014/denunciation-proclamation I , especially from my perspective as a left-libertarian commentator, take a more nuanced view of the impetus of the war between the states. First off, I primarily agree with the remarks made in this article. http://philmagness.com/?p=589, namely this part, "As noted, these are views that enlist fundamentally ideological considerations of the sort that tends to exert a distortive effect upon the processes of historical inquiry. Finding neither particularly adequate, and both prone to one-dimensional and hyperbolic editorializing at the expense of historical complexity, I’ll offer the following two concurrent ground rules for any libertarian wishing to enter a Civil War discussion:

1. One needn’t be for the Union to be against slavery.
2. One needn’t be for the Confederacy to object to the North’s prosecution of the war.

As a further general observation, let it be noted that when libertarians say something stupid about the Civil War it usually stems from accepting only one of these ground rules and neglecting the other." For example the noted abolitionist, Lysander Spooner, a figure widely claimed by the right, and left libertarians alike, was supportive of the supposed right of the southern states to secede. http://lysanderspooner.org/node/44 And Abraham Lincoln himself proclaimed this, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” -http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm So why so I believe the various southern states voted to secede from the Union? Bluntly put, because their leaders were a bunch of stupid sensationalists. Look, similarly to today, the conservatives of the time had been making out the Republican presidential candidates, first Fremont, and then Lincoln, out to be radical extremists. Look at these two historic political cartoons, and see for yourself. On Fremont http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2003656588/ , and on Lincoln  http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2003674590/. Both were portrayed as favoring socialism, just as our current president, Barack Obama is made out to, by conservative rightists of today. So in my view, the south's struggle for separation from the federal government was an over reaction to what they thought was going to be an extreme social change, in which not only would their supposedly be the abolition of chattel slavery, but of wage slavery as well, And any other explanation, whether it pertain to slavery, or tariffs, falls short of standards of authentic historical validity. I understand how people will want to try to ennoble the conflict as either being about the freedom of slaves, from a unionist standpoint, or the rights of states, from a confederate bias, but really the war was in reality simply a tragic mistake.  P.S.In the interests of full personal disclosure, in case any of you were wondering, I am the descendent of Civil War veterans, whom all fought on the federal side. Most notably this man http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=20459968. So I might be expected to hold a pro-northern bias, at least subconsciously, as due to the south's decision in favor of rebellion, I was at risk of never having been born, if my ancestors hadn't survived it. So my sentiments might be seen as being emotional, and not merely rational.