The term neo-Confederacy is used to describe twentieth and twenty-first century revivals of pro-Confederate sentiment in the United States. Strongly nativist and advocating measures to end immigration, neo-Confederacy claims to pursue Christianity and heritage and other supposedly fundamental values that modern Americans are seen to abandoned.
Neo-Confederacy also incorporates advocacy of traditional gender roles, is hostile towards democracy, strongly opposes homosexuality, and exhibits an understanding of race that favors segregation and suggests white supremacy. In many cases, neo-Confederates are openly secessionist read more on:
Neo-confederates and libertarianism
Historian Daniel Feller asserts that libertarian authors Thomas DiLorenzo, Charles Adams, and Jeffrey Rogers
Hummel have produced a "marriage of neo-Confederates and libertarianism." Despite an apparent disconnect asks, "How can a lover of liberty defend slavery?), Feller writes:
What unites the two, aside from their hostility to the liberal academic establishment, is their mutual loathing of big
government. Adams, DiLorenzo, and Hummel view the Civil War through the prism of market economics. In their its main consequence, and even its purpose, was to create a leviathan state that used its powers to suppress most basic personal freedom, the right to choose. The Civil War thus marks a historic retreat for liberty, not an
advance. Adams and DiLorenzo dismiss the slavery issue as a mere pretext for aggrandizing central power. All authors see federal tyranny as the war's greatest legacy. And they all hate Abraham Lincoln.
Hummel in turn, in a review of libertarian Thomas E. Woods, Jr's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History",
refers to the works by DiLorenzo and Adams as "amateurish neo-Confederate books". Of Woods, Hummel states the two main neo-Confederate aspects of Woods' work are his emphasis on a legal right of secession while ignoring
the moral right to secession and his failure to acknowledge the importance of slavery in the Civil War. Hummel Woods writes 'that the slavery debate masked the real issue: the struggle over power and domination' (p. 48). Talk
about a distinction without a difference. It is akin to stating that the demands of sugar lobbyists for protective quotas
mask their real worry: political influence. Yes, slaveholders constituted a special interest that sought political power. Why? To protect slavery.
Hummel also criticizes Woods' "neo-Confederate sympathies" in his chapter on Reconstruction. Most egregious his "apologia for the Black Codes adopted by the southern states immediately after the Civil War." Part of the problem
was Woods' reliance on an earlier neo-Confederate work, Robert Selph Henry's 1938 book "The Story of Reconstruction."
read more on:
#Neo-confederates_and_libertarianism" class="Array" rel="nofollow" target="_new">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate#Neo-confederates_and_libertarianism