Murray’s reasoning for including, at least, the war of the Confederacy is dubious. To quote his take on what constitutes a just war:

My own view of war can be put simply: a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them.

This viewpoint of Rothbard is not the best take on just war. Rothbard uses the collectivist concept of a people rather than the autonomous individual. This can easily lead to a nationalistic defense of state sovereignty as opposed to a radical defense of individual rights. This is not to deny that human beings exist in a social context. It simply acknowledges that consent is ultimately necessary on an individual level.

Even if one agrees with this viewpoint, it doesn’t legitimize the South’s war. The South was trying to preserve coercive domination over black people. And the Confederacy hypocritically denied slaves the same right of secession that the Confederate government was claiming in relation to the Union. The negative libertarian rights and freedoms of the slaves were not acknowledged by the Confederate state.

There is simply no way of reconciling radical libertarian principle with a defense of the so called Southern War of Independence. This doesn’t mean the Union was perfect or perfectly embodied libertarian ideals either. To quote Roderick Long:

When libertarians on one side point out that the Union centralised power, violated civil liberties, committed vicious war crimes, was hypocritical on secession, ignored avenues for peaceful emancipation, and cared more about tariffs and nationalism than about ending slavery, I agree and applaud; but they lose me when they start calling the Civil War the “Second War of American Independence” and portray the Confederates as freedom fighters.

Equivalently, when libertarians on the other side point out that the preservation and extension of slavery was central to the South’s motivations for secession (as seems clear from what secessionists said at the time of secession, as opposed to what they said in their memoirs years later), and that the Confederacy was just as bloated and oppressive a centralized state as the Union, equally hypocritical on secession and equally invasive of civil liberties, once more I agree and applaud. (As I like to say, the Confederacy was just another failed government program.) But they too lose me, when they start calling Lincoln a great libertarian and the consolidation of federal power a victory for liberty.

The proper position to take is one of opposition to both states alike and support for anarchistic abolitionism of the Lysander Spooner variety.

The young Tadeusz (or Thaddeus) Andrzej Bonawentura Kosciuszko (pronounced KOS-CHOOS-KO, 2/4/1746-10/15/1817), born near Brest (now in Belarus) studied military engineering in Paris with the intent of serving in his native Poland. However, in 1772 Prussia, Austria and Russia had partitioned Poland, seizing around 30% of its territory and forcing governmental changes through bribes, threats and arrests. There was no place in the Polish Army for Kosciuszko, and he left in 1775 to France where, at some point in late 1775, he heard about the American rebellion against the British and was recruited by Silas Deane and Benjamin Franklin.

Like many young Europeans of his time, he was enthralled with the Revolutionary activity in the New World. Shortly after arriving in Philadelphia in 1776, Kosciuszko read the Declaration of Independence and he recognized everything in which he truly believed. When he discovered Thomas Jefferson was responsible for drafting the Declaration, he had to meet him. A few months later, while moving south with the Continental Army, Kosciuszko stopped in Virginia to meet with Jefferson. The two men spent the day comparing philosophies and became the best of friends.

The colonists were desperate for engineers, even those who had only just arrived from abroad with no knowledge of America, and on October 18th 1776 Kosciuszko became Colonel of Engineers, Washington’s chief engineer and strategist. The thirty-year-old began planning forts along the Delaware. His first duty was to help fortify Philadelphia from naval attack. Kosciuszko centered the defenses on a new fort, Mercer, while setting up aquatic blockades designed to force British ships closer to both the shore and bombardment. Kosciuszko moved on to help with the defense of Fort Ticonderoga. Partly due to disregard of Kosciuszko’s advice, Ticonderoga was toppled. Kosciuszko’s forces felled pine trees and flooded fields to slow the pursuit of the British. This gave the rebels time to prepare for their first major victory of the war: Saratoga. At Saratoga, Kosciuszko fortified Bemis Heights overlooking the Hudson. His ingenious design contributed to the surrender of 6,000 troops under General John Burgoyne.

Kosciuszko then undertook the defense of the Hudson at West Point in 1778. So thorough were his fortifications, that the British never mounted an assault. One of the more imaginative links in the colonel’s defensive plan was a 60 ton chain stretched across the Hudson to block British ships. Kosciuszko went on to lead troops and, by 1783, he had been promoted to Brigadier General. Of the foreign subjects who came to the revolution’s aid, Kosciuszko’s contribution was perhaps only second to Lafayette (with Charles Lee and von Steuben far behind). Kosciuszko learned how to win battles with a militia of untrained and poorly equipped men, as well as how to apply his years of study, often quite brilliantly, in the field, abilities he would use in his later career.

Kosciuszko developed a strong dislike for slavery and serfdom based on his belief in individual rights and Republican government. These applied not just to the newly independent colonies, but to his homeland.

Following the Revolutionary War, Kosciuszko returned to Poland to fight for independence from the occupying Russians. In 1789, he became Major General of the Polish forces. The reforms of the May Constitution of Poland, the first modern constitution in Europe and second in the world after the American, were seen by the surrounding powers as a threat to their influence over Poland. In, 1792 a Russian army of 100,000 crossed the Polish border and headed for Warsaw, now that Russia and her imperial allies were no longer battling the Ottoman Empire; thus began the War in Defence of the Constitution. the Polish Army was well-trained and prepared for the war. After the betrayal of Prussian allies, the Army of Lithuania could not stop the advancing Russians. The Polish Army was too weak to oppose the enemy advancing in the Ukraine and withdrew, regrouped, counter-attacked, and was victorious. In the ensuing battles, Kosciuszko repelled the numerically superior enemy and became the most brilliant Polish military commander of his time. In 1792, King Stanislaw joined the Targowica confederation and surrendered to the Russians and, in 1793, Prussia and Russia signed the Second Partition of Poland. Such an outcome was a blow for the Targowica Confederation who saw their actions as defence of centuries-old privileges of the upper classes, now regarded by the majority of Polish population as traitors. After the partition, the Targowica confederation evaporated.

Kosciuszko prepared a plan of an uprising and led the Polish-Lithuanian uprising of 1794 (known as the Kosciuszko Rebellion), winning key conflicts before being defeated by the vastly superior forces of Prussia, Russia and Austria.

Kosciuszko drew popular support from peasant classes as well as nobles and magnates. Wounded during the battle of Maciejowice, Kosciuszko was taken prisoner. After two years’ incarceration, the Czar granted him amnesty on the condition he never return to Poland.

He set off once more to America in 1797. Throngs of Philadelphians lined the wharves to welcome their Revolutionary War hero back to the United States. The mob carried him on their shoulders while bands played and cannons fired fusillades of homage.

Yellow Fever was ravaging Philadelphia, so Kosciuszko left to visit with friends in New York. Upon return to Philadelphia, Kosciuszko convalesced while receiving admirers daily. Jefferson came by frequently and Philadelphia ladies had their pictures sketched by Kosciuszko himself. Kosciuszko was awarded back pay from Congress and 500 acres of land along the Scioto River in what is present-day Columbus, Ohio.

Restive, Kosciuszko left in 1798 for Europe, involved in agricultural pursuits near Paris. Still devoted to the Polish cause, Kosciuszko took part in creation of the Polish Legions. He remained active in the Polish emigré circles and in 1799 was a founder of the Society of Polish Republicans (precursor to the Polish Democratic Society). In 1806, Napoleon asked for him to join in the invasion of Poland, but he refused. He distrusted Napoleon and would not fight for him, despite the Emperor’s offer of command of the Polish Legion. Kosciuszko instead demanded a commitment to Polish sovereignty, believing Napoleon only sought French domination. Consequently, Kosciuszko was not involved in the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, a puppet state set up by Bonaparte in 1807.

He was invited to the Congress of Vienna, the great gathering of European leaders which redrew Europe in the aftermath of Napoleon’s defeat. Here, Emperors courted Kosciuszko, and Tsar Alexander planned a Poland under Russian dominion, possibly headed by Kosciuszlo, which he refused.

The idea of revolution drove Kosciuszko, and he wrote several texts on rebellion, analyzing uprisings and guerilla warfare. In 1815 Kosciuszko moved to Switzerland, dying of a fall in 1817.

He was a hero of both the American Revolution and European republican movements. The American Revolutionary War’s success changed the modern world and, while the revolution in Poland failed, the monarchical forces diverted to the destruction of the Polish Republic gave the French Revolution sufficient time to establish more durable institutions. After the final partition in 1795, the Polish Commonwealth ceased to exist. It was not until World War I after the Allied victory in November 1918 that Poland was able to regain its independence, only to later lose to the Soviet Union. The renaissance of Poland has much to do with the efforts of those like Kosciuszko.

There can be no prescription old enough to supercede the Law of Nature and the grant of God Almighty, who has given to all men a natural right to be free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so, if they please.–James Otis, Jr.

James Otis, Jr. (2/5/1725-5/23/1783) of West Barnstable, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, began his tutelage under Reverend Jonathan Russell and, by fifteen, Otis entered Harvard College and graduated in 1743. He studied law for two years under Judge Jeremiah Gridley, a member of the General Court of Massachusetts. The young conservative (as Otis was earlier in life) then served the Boston vice-admiralty court as advocate general from 1756 to 1760.

In 1760, with the end of the French and Indian War and the accession of George III, his administration compelled customs officials in Massachusetts to apply for new “writs of assistance” in the king’s name. These writs were in effect, search warrants that gave customs inspectors the legal authority to inspect ships, warehouses, homes or wherever else they felt compelled to inspect. Smuggling was common in the colonies due, in part, to high tariffs on sugar and molasses. This encouraged American merchants to deal with French, Dutch and West Indies traders.

Royal officials in London tightened enforcement against smuggling by offering Massachusetts Governor Francis Bernard with a third of the fines collected from such activities. To aid the call for tighter enforcement, Governor Bernard appointed Thomas Hutchinson Chief Justice of Massachusetts. In doing so, Bernard passed over Otis’s father, Colonel James Otis, Sr. This action infuriated the Otis family and led to Otis’s resignation as the king’s advocate general with the vice-admiralty. After resigning, Otis offered assistance to the merchants in their attempt to stop execution of the new writs.

On February 24, 1761, a case came before the Superior Court of Massachusetts by Charles Paxton, the Surveyor of Customs for the Port of Boston, for writs of assistance. Jeremiah Gridley appeared for the customs office. Otis and an associate represented sixty-three Boston merchants, in opposition. Gridley argued the Court of Exchequer had the statutory authority to issue them, that the province law of 1699 had granted the Superior Court jurisdiction in Massachusetts over matters which the courts of King’s Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer have, and further that such warrants were necessary in the collection of taxes and in protecting the state from foreign and domestic subversives.

When Otis spoke, one critic described him as “a plump, round faced, smooth skinned, short necked, eagle eyed politician,” but John Adams attended the trial and wrote down the account in his diary and again some fifty years later, “Otis was a flame of fire!”

Otis relied on English law to prove that only special warrants were legal and attacked the writs as “instruments of slavery.” Defending the right to privacy, he proclaimed that the power to issue general search warrants placed “the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” In perhaps his most moving passage, Otis declared,

A man’s home is his castle, and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it is declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom house office may enter our houses when they please and we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court, can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient. This wanton exercise of this power is not a chimerical suggestion of a heated brain. What a scene does this open! Every man, prompted by revenge, ill humor, or wantonness to inspect the inside of his neighbor’s house, may get a writ of assistance. Other’s will ask it from self-defense; one arbitrary action will promote another, until society be involved in tumult and blood.

Otis’s oration took some four or five hours and was not taken down stenographically, but it left an indelible impression on the young Adams. With a “profusion of legal authorities,” Adams tells us, “a prophetic glance of his eye into futurity, and a torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away everything before him.” Adams continued, “every man of a crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.” Adams concluded his summation of the event by pronouncing, “Then and there, the child Independence was born.” Otis challenged not just the royal governor of Massachusetts, not just Parliament, and not just the King, but also the entire British government, with a solid appeal to the Rule of Law. Thus began the American Revolution.

Following the Otis oration, the members of the bench had been swayed, with the exception of Chief Justice Hutchinson, who delayed the vote in an attempt to buy precious time. Hutchinson succeeded in having the writs upheld when, in November of that same year, the case was heard a second time. George III was the new monarch, and the Court of Exchequer routinely issued writs of assistance in England. The Massachusetts judges felt they could no longer refuse to issue them in the colonies as well. Hutchinson had won a temporary victory. In 1765, Hutchinson’s Boston home was destroyed by an angry mob.

Otis’s battle against the writs of assistance won him great public favor for a time. In May of 1761, he won election to the Massachusetts General Court. The news of the election reached a Worchester dinner party. Attending the party were John Adams and Brigadier Timothy Ruggles, who was chief justice of the Common Pleas Court and later a Tory exile. Ruggles declared to Adams, “Out of this election will arise a damned faction, which will shake the province to its knees.”

Ruggles’s prophetic prediction proved even more accurate than he expected for it was 1761 that triggered the Revolution, and the Otis family, father and son, set the wheels in motion. That same year, James Otis Sr. was reelected as Speaker of the House, and together, they succeeded in pushing through an act which forbid any writ which did not specify under oath, the person and place to be searched. However, under the advice of the Supreme Court, Governor Bernard refused to approve the legislation. Nonetheless, the public sentiment had shifted, and talk of an independent nation had begun.

In 1764, Prime Minister George Grenville and the British Parliament had imposed upon the colonies the Sugar Act. The new law placed tariffs on sugar, wine, coffee and other products, and spelled trouble for many American businesses. At the time the Sugar Act was passed by Parliament, Grenville had also submitted a resolution for a Stamp Tax.

Otis was vehemently opposed to the proposition of these new taxes and wrote a pamphlet entitled The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Approved. In this pamphlet, Otis denied any fundamental difference between internal and external taxes. The Parliament dismissed the pamphlet as propaganda while the emotions of the American colonials were sparked.

Otis became an instant celebrity and a month later was elected to a seat in the General Court (legislature). As time passed and the list of American grievances against the Crown grew, Otis played an ever more prominent role in advancing the colonists’ interests. In 1764, he headed the Massachusetts committee of correspondence. The following year he was a leading figure at the Stamp Act Congress in New York City. In 1765, the Stamp Act was passed and Otis stood as one of the Acts most vocal critics. Under the pseudonym “John Hampden,” Otis published in the Boston press a sweeping denial of Parliaments right to tax the colonies without representation.

Otis’s open advocacy of American rights grated on many officials’ nerves; his election to the speakership of the General Court in 1766 was voided by the governor’s veto. Undeterred, Otis teamed with Samuel Adams to confront the next crisis: enforcement of the Townshend Duties in 1767. The firebrand duo drafted a circular letter to enlist the other colonies in planned resistance to the new taxes.

Otis’s pamphlet to the Parliament drew resolute approval from the Whigs in England.

Otis began a gradual loss of his mental faculties. His continued verbal assaults grew worse. In 1769, Otis was in a coffeehouse brawl with a customs official and received substantial injuries to the head. This quickened the pace of his failing mental capacities and two years later, his old adversary, Thomas Hutchinson, appointed a sanity commission which found Otis to be a lunatic.

Throughout the remainder of his life, Otis had intermittent spells of clarity, but he played very little role in the Revolution. He was placed in the care of various friends and family members. While under the care of his sister, Mercy Otis Warren, at Watertown, Mass., he heard rumor of battle. On June 17, he slipped away unobserved, borrowed a musket from a roadside farmhouse and joined the minute men who were marching to the aid of the troops at Bunker Hill. He took an active part in the battle and afterwards made his way home again. In 1783, James Otis, Jr. was struck dead by a bolt of lightning while standing in the doorway of his sisters’ home. A tragic end to an outspoken leader who sent the colonists in the direction of a revolution.

This little bit of history should be remembered by the current administration in their endeavor to allow warrants without recourse to local judges’ permission. This is how the American Revolution was touched off. If the Bush administration is not careful, there is little doubt in my mind that there will be unintended consequences in America’s future!