What happened in America in the 1860s was a war of secession, a war of independence, no different in principle from what happened in America in the 1770s and 1780s.

In this quote, L. Neil Smith draws a parallel between the American Civil War of the 1860s and the earlier American Revolutionary War of the 1770s and 1780s. Smith suggests that both conflicts were fundamentally about secession and the desire for independence. He argues that just as the colonies fought to break free from British rule in the 18th century, the Confederate states in the 1860s sought to secede from the Union and establish their own government. In his view, both wars were driven by the principle of self-determination and the right of people to govern themselves.

Smith's comparison challenges the conventional narrative that the Civil War was primarily about slavery and emphasizes the constitutional and political dimensions of the conflict. He views the Confederacy’s actions as an extension of the American tradition of independence, equating their desire to leave the Union with the colonial fight for freedom against Great Britain. By drawing this analogy, Smith is making a broader point about the legitimacy of movements for self-rule, even when they challenge the existing political order.

The origin of this quote lies in Smith’s work as a political commentator, novelist, and advocate of individual liberty. As a libertarian thinker, he often wrote about the principles of freedom and self-government, and his views on the American Civil War reflect his belief in the right of secession. Smith’s statement is rooted in his ideological stance, which aligns more closely with the idea of individual and regional autonomy rather than a strong, centralized government.

In this context, Smith’s words prompt a reevaluation of the Civil War and the American Revolution, encouraging a consideration of the philosophical principles behind both events. He argues that, at their core, both conflicts were about the same fundamental issue: the right of people or states to choose their own fate and reject an authority they no longer wished to follow. His perspective invites debate on the nature of secession and the ongoing relevance of these historical questions in modern political discourse.