Can some explain to me why a decent amount of libertarians don’t like Lincoln
Posted by Berreta_topg239@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 139 comments
So I see online and in this sub that a lot of libertarians don’t like Lincoln and myself being a new libertarian I was wondering why, I know he violated the first amendment and also did increase control over states using the federal government and was a hypocrite in certain aspects with him keeping slavery legal in loyal states but overall he did give slaves freedom which is a libertarian position since one of our most basic principles is everyone has the right to their own freedom so if someone could give me a more in depth explanation that would be helpful
RothbardLibertarian@reddit
Lincoln was a big protectionist/ high tariff guy.
He helped the railroads abuse eminent domain and steal private land for so-called “public” good to build the rail system.
He shredded the constitution by suspending habeas corpus.
In short it’s unsurprising that libertarians should detest him. He was the first great aggrandizer of power in the federal government. Given his expressed comments on blacks, the idea that he fought the civil war to free the slaves is ludicrous. He just didn’t like the states getting uppity and thinking they were sovereign.
XxMrCuddlesxX@reddit
I mean he basically argued that the president could do whatever he liked regardless of what Congress or the supreme Court said so long as the union was reunited. Notably his unconstitutional revoking of habeas corpus. Another thing may be that the tenth amendment to the Constitution clearly gives every power not stated to the states. There is no mention of secession being allowed or not but you could argue that the tenth amendment gave the states the right to secede if they chose. Obviously after the war the supreme Court said otherwise.
Let's be real though. The libertarian party has always had a lot of weirdos, as well as a lot of never trump republicans now.
cstatus94@reddit
But doesn't the constitution grant the Government the ability to suspend Habeas Corpus during times of rebellion? Not too familiar with the history did Lincoln suspend Habeaus Corpus without an act of congress?
dp25x@reddit
It gives this power to Congress, not to the executive branch.
cstatus94@reddit
I know...... that is why I asked if he did it without an act of Congress.
Jolly_Job_9852@reddit
So Lincoln did suspend Habeas Corpus without Congress giving it authorization and when Chief Jusrice Taney write an En Parte order stopping it, Lincoln flat out refused to comply with that order. It was then that Congress gave the authority to Lincoln to continue with the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
not_today_thank@reddit
I wonder what would have happened with slavery in the South. It almost certainly would have ended by the 1890s or they would have likely been ostracized from the Western world. I wonder what the end of slavery in the South would have looked like, maybe slave revolts leading to freedom? Would it have resulted in an Apartheid like system? Could they have found a peaceful way to end slavery and integrate society without the economic destruction of the war and northern occupation and reconstruction? I also wonder what would have happened to the United States. Would Texas have stayed with the confederacy? Would the western territories have become states or possibly formed their country/countries?
snuff74@reddit
Most of Europe found non-violent ways to end slavery, so there's no reason to think a non-violent solution was impossible in the south.
SolidSnake179@reddit
If the north hadn't been so messed up itself, there would have been zero need for a war. That's the parts of history that get erased. The ones up there should were okay with slavery as long as their cotton made the trip to the mill in the North. They didn't care where, who or how their stuff got there.
Worried_Amphibian_54@reddit
That's true. For most nations cutting off the slave trade worked well. Granted the US was the only major slave society to not just exist, but thrive and grow without an external supply of enslaved workers.
Now Europe did find non-violent ways. In the 1950's the UK and some other nations, taking a closer look on human rights after seeing Genocides occurring across Europe told Saudi Arabia to end slavery or they would stop buying oil.
There's been talks about doing the same with natural gas and oil exports from Russia due to the high levels of forced labor... nothing really has come of that though yet (more has been about the war in the Ukraine).
nanananabatman88@reddit
I mean they already proved that wrong once...
snuff74@reddit
So is it your belief that there would still be slavery in the south if the civil war had never happened?
nanananabatman88@reddit
No, but I don't think it would have ended non-violently.
ghostoftomjoad69@reddit
They tried compromising on the issue. Missouri compromise, mason-dixon line, runaway slave act, dredd scott decision...they tried so many legalese manuevers around the issue, john brown was right, he had watched the slavers with impunity sack Lawrence Kansas, only immense bloodshed could wash the united states of that ongoing sin, and even then only maybe. He seemed like an extremist at the time, a few million casualties later, he seemed pretty spot on the nose with his predictions on the matter.
SolidSnake179@reddit
Right. This right here. They'd have failed because other countries had no part with supporting immoral nations at that time. Unless they developed their own industries but they were conditioned in dependency so badly that they would never have been able to develop an economy fast enough. They never really were even able to develop a good unified government and that was likely the easiest part. Around 20 percent of the south held all of the wealth. They were just rich dependents who could buy their way through whatever. Couldn't do anything for themselves really. It's sad to look deeply at what that life must have been like.
Worried_Amphibian_54@reddit
Slavery almost certainly would have ended by the 1890s or they would have likely been ostracized from the Western world.
Why? It would be the 1950's (post WWII era when nations were taking a harder look at human rights around the world and nations were more united in response) when the UK and other nations would force Saudi Arabia to end slavery or they would stop buying raw materials from there.
And even today Russia is one of the largest and has one of the highest rates of slavery AND is invading a fellow European country... Guess who's buying their natural gas though?
SolidSnake179@reddit
I don't consider practical people or centrists to be weirdos. The weirdos types are the liberals that hide out and disguise themselves as libertarian because they're too stupid to understand what it really is. But I do get it. Being a practical, faithful, grounded and unbiased centrist really pisses a lot of unstable, controlling and influence driven people off.
Difrntthoughtpatrn@reddit
If you look at the history, put aside emotions, the 13 colonies decided to enter into a legal agreement. The agreement, according to the Constitution, was that slaves would be returned to slave holders. The Southern states brought this up for many years, that their slaves weren't being returned to the slave holders. Nothing would be done about it in Congress to enforce the Constitution. At last, South Carolina decided they were leaving the legal agreement/ contract that had been broken by the Northern states. They sent a letter of secession that outlined their reasons for leaving, a broken contract if you will.
Ft. Sumter was now on foreign soil. The Land belongs to a foreign country, and Lincoln was sending reinforcements. Anywhere else in the world, this would be considered an act of war. The shots fired on the Fort were not the start of the Civil War, it was the reinforcement of the Fort on foreign land after the secession. The South were labeled as traitors when, in actuality, the North was the aggressor against a sovereign country.
Slavery was wrong and needed to be dealt with, but the State's right to secede was right and sadly lost to a tyrannical federal government.
Worried_Amphibian_54@reddit
Ft. Sumter was now on foreign soil.
Why? The Government of South Carolina had already ceded all right and claim to that land and the fort that would be built on it to the Federal Government of the United States of America.
It was no more on foreign soil than if after Russia formed a new nation (the USSR) with a new government, their deal that the land which would be known as Alaska which had been ceded to the US Federal Government was theirs once again.
Luckily too we have not just the oath of office by state officers that requires them to support the US Constitution (aka throwing it off and creating a new one to support is against that oath and thus null), but of course the Founding Fathers speaking openly that unilateral secession wasn't a right, the power didn't stay with big state governments, but with the people, the whole people themselves. And of course in those matters where states and the Federal government disagree, the Constitution states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to both law and fact in the matter.
Difrntthoughtpatrn@reddit
Yeah, go back and read what I wrote. The contract was negated, and this the property would be South Carolina property. It was part of being in the Union, no longer in the Union, you don't keep the property.
Worried_Amphibian_54@reddit
Read the contract recorded on July 9 1840. Nope there was no "negation" clause if one party wanted to leave it. You made that up. Rather than try and revise and rewrite history for your weird emotional reasons, lets get back to discussing facts okay?
ghostoftomjoad69@reddit
If my state is a free state, we have mo obligation to uphold slavery laws in a sovereign state that has banned the practice.
While there are extradition treaties/laws, lets say im in a state that has a ban on abortion, well if abortion is legal in another state, its perfectly ok to do it there. Theres no liberty to enslave others, if slavery is not wrong, then i guess nothing is wrong.
Difrntthoughtpatrn@reddit
The Constitution was drawn up, so that they would join the Union, with those stipulations. It was made law. The issue was brought up, according to the letter of secession from South Carolina, and it was ignored many times over years. Lincoln was known to be a President who wanted to abolish slavery and his election was the final straw.
Let's say you entered into a legally binding contract with someone else not to get an abortion. You decide to ignore that contract and get 20 over time. Would it be odd or even wrong if I nullified our contract?
Worried_Amphibian_54@reddit
It depends. If you are all about huge government, and you say "hey, not just can the Feds hunt down enslaved people, but the Federal Government is supreme in everything and even state officials are now bound to stop you and you yourself as a citizen is forced to actively participate in returning slaves (or you can be imprisoned), then I guess it would be wrong.
Difrntthoughtpatrn@reddit
Stop being emotional. This is a historical conversation, not your feels. It has nothing to do with how I feel or what I believe. This is purely history.
Grow up, let's be adults.
Worried_Amphibian_54@reddit
Let's be adults. Lets put aside your red herring there and be adults and discuss the facts of the matter, not just jump to how you feel.
jyper@reddit
An unbreakable agreement. There is no right to secede in the Constitution.
Actually a lot of things were done about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850 Many of these things caused a lot of issues related to rights and the rule of law even besides the evil of slavery. White men kidnapping Black Citizens who were not allowed to testify on their own behalf and got no trial. If you are not fond of a tyrannical federal government forcing state officials to do things they didn't want to do this is the prime example. And yet it was not the north who attempted to succed it was the crybaby worried they wouldn't get their own way for once or that Slavery might eventually end.
Ft Sumner was a federal fort on US soil. There is no provision to leave in the constitution.
The south fired on their country. Lincoln gave them every chance including some unwise ones to settle things peacefully. He didn't force them to fire
They were clearly traitors. They betrayed their oath to the constitution conspired and made war against their country. What else would you call them? It's not the north it's the US, the country they remained part of(merely in treasonous rebellion)
As has often been the case in US history many states were much worse/more tyrannical then the federal government. I don't see how a libertarian could defend state powers to take away people's rights
Difrntthoughtpatrn@reddit
There is nothing to say they couldn't secede. It was a legally binding contract between the states, it was broken, and the offended party left.
Some states made laws against returning slaves, this is contrary to the legally binding contract they made to form a union and violated the contract. It seems that people don't understand or can't grasp the idea of agreeing to something. HOAs always come up in this sub, you don't get put into an HOA, you agree to be in one. Much like the idea here, so much so that the letter of secession from South Carolina said as much, there wouldn't have been slave states in the Union unless they were to agree to those stipulations.
Where is Ft. Sumter? It was no longer in the Union's territory. There was no provision in the Constitution that said they couldn't leave.
They fired on a hostile presence in their own country.
Wrong! The contract was nullified, they separated from the Union and were no longer party of it. It makes no difference if you think they were still a Union, they were not. I'm sure this will go over well if you ever get a divorce. "No, no, we're still married"........
Did you read what I said? Taking away of people's rights (slavery) was wrong. Trying to force a state to stay in the Union after the contract they all agreed to was broken, over and over with no resolve, is not libertarian at all.
Worried_Amphibian_54@reddit
Actually the Constitutional requirement that state officials (legislators, governors, judges etc) were required by oath to SUPPORT the US Constitution made any actions by them to throw off and ignore said Constitution null.
Where is Ft. Sumter? It was no longer in the Union's territory. So it's an exclave? We've got one here in Minnesota, only touches Canada and open water. Now that's ok for Canada to bomb and take? What about Alaska, is that fair game for them now that their government changed?
The fact still stands, the gov't of South Carolina ceded all right and claim to the land and buildings that would become Ft Sumter.
Difrntthoughtpatrn@reddit
Do you understand how to change law. 2/3 for an amendment...... you're 13 right? You gotta be a kid cause your comprehension of this simple idea is absent.
Worried_Amphibian_54@reddit
Yup, 2/3 for an amendment. Doesn't change that South Carolina ceded all right and claim to Ft Sumter. Doesn't change that the Constitution says in matters between states it's the Supreme Court who has original jurisdiction to both fact and law.
You are right though, if 2/3 of the states ratified an amendment that unilateral secession was legal, THEN that would be legal.
steph-anglican@reddit
Their slaves were not being returned because of JURY NULIFICATION, something actual libertarians are in favor of.
Slavery is wrong because it trashes someone else's liberty, something actual libertarians are against.
South Carolina succeeded because an extremely mild abolitionist, willing to guarantee their "domestic institutions" was chosen by the states as president.
The Confederate government was illegitimate since as the first constitution of the United States was as its title stated, PERPETUAL.
Fort Sumpter, if it was on foreign soil was the PROPERTY of the government of the United States, or are we going to forget about that libertarian principal too?
If the confederacy was a foreign government then the US had the same right to invade it as it had to invade Canada in the war of 1812.
Difrntthoughtpatrn@reddit
That's very libertarian of you wanting to invade Canada and the South.
Some libertarians don't grasp reality. If you agree to live in an HOA, you have legally agreed to live by those rules. No one is forcing an HOA on you, it's a legal contract that you agree to, or you don't get to buy that property.
Same idea here, slave states would not have joined the Union if this was not included into the Constitution. I'm sorry it makes you mad, but it's the truth. They broke the legally binding contract and refused to acknowledge the grievances of the injured party. The injured party decided to leave the Union over the broken contract. Please find where the Constitution says it is perpetual, I would like to see it.
Like I said, keep your emotions out of it. We aren't talking here about what was libertarian about slavery. This was a legal contract that was broken by the Northern states. This has nothing to do with my personal political beliefs and everything to do with the history of what happened.
riggsdr@reddit
I can't believe you're using libertarianism and contracts to defend slavery. A "legal contract" that forcibly and violently removes the God given freedom of another person (or entire race of people) without their consent should not be considered valid under libertarianism and the non-violence principle.
Difrntthoughtpatrn@reddit
Grow up, it's a historical conversation. No one is defending anything, that's why my original post said to set your emotions aside, Karen.
riggsdr@reddit
My post wasn't emotional; you're the one restoring to name calling.
Comparing slavery to an HOA contract us either intellectually dishonest, or indicative that you do not value the liberty of black people as much as others. Which is it?
ThatGuy721@reddit
How can you enter into a contract that takes away the rights of an entire group of people without their consent? I consider the rights and freedoms of people more important than a "contract" that takes away those rights. Prioritize you belief system better.
Difrntthoughtpatrn@reddit
I'll say it again, leave your emotions out of this Karen. This is a historical conversation about how it was. We all know what is legal and what is right are two different things.
Ya_Boi_Konzon@reddit
So none.
SeanT_21@reddit
The Confederate states were only sovereign according to themselves, they had no legal recognition from any foreign country at the time they fired on Ft Sumter. And they sure as hell were not going to be recognized by the remaining states in the Union.
Bellyache all you want, but the Confederates were the aggressors no matter how you try and slice it. The Union was reinforcing territory that they still considered to be theirs, as it was a federal property, not property of the state of S.Carolina.
Difrntthoughtpatrn@reddit
When you break a contract and refuse to honor your agreement, you are the aggressor. When someone decides to leave that contract because of those reasons, you don't have a leg to stand on.
I bet you would be the type to cheat on your spouse and then get mad and try to force them to stay in the marriage when they wanted to leave and nullify your marriage. "But you agreed, you're my property"......
Taxistheft98@reddit
Neither Roosevelt belong in your top ten presidents as a libertarian. I think OP is a very confused person.
Berreta_topg239@reddit (OP)
I mean Teddy Rosevelt, the guy who got shot and still gave a 80 minute speech, that puts him in my top five because of that
Suspicious-Duck1868@reddit
Honestly I’d take him rather than the last what, 90 years of presidents
soggyGreyDuck@reddit
I think he had morals we couldn't even comprehend by today's standards but he still became a dictator to win the civil war.
SeanT_21@reddit
I would rather take what wound up happening than the alternative of the South winning, 1000/1000. Take that as you will…
soggyGreyDuck@reddit
The fact is we are very lucky he had the moral character he did. Others might have tried to maintain the extra power he got during the war or even taken it further and essentially try to become a king/dictator but I don't think it ever crossed Abes mind.
SolidSnake179@reddit
This. It was wrong under law, but so perfect under our understanding of the greater good and morality over legalism. I'd like to think those gray areas sometimes are where we libertarians understand grace and liberty for the sake of wisdom.
SeanT_21@reddit
That is very true, which is one of the reasons I feel the way I do. Abe never came across as a power hungry guy, hell by the end of the war, it seemed like he had been through the ringer, and was worn out. The before/after pics of him pre and post war are startling
steph-anglican@reddit
He acted as if he was in a civil war because he was?
Suspicious-Duck1868@reddit
Wish he could make a comeback and become a dictator to end the FED 😂
soggyGreyDuck@reddit
Haha
SolidSnake179@reddit
I agree with this. He COULD have abused power after he broke the lines but in extreme times, he really kind of did better than I think anyone else in that spot would have.
SARS2KilledEpstein@reddit
Basically, Lincoln vastly expanded the roll of the federal government and is responsible for the concept of executive orders as they are now. Sure the executive branch gave "orders" since Washington but it was always specific to what the constitution outlined for authority. With Lincoln the idea was reversed and instead of explicit authority granted by the constitution the concept was changed to implicit. I.E. unless the constitution says the federal government doesn't have the authority it does by default.
steph-anglican@reddit
Can you kindly give an example?
NaturalCarob5611@reddit
Secession.
The Constitution didn't say anything about states leaving the Union, so they presumed they had that right and he went to war to deny it to them.
capt-bob@reddit
Technically, the south attacked the north after they secceeded , I gather the North used language that they were still in the union, but the south claimed they weren't, and attacked the north first. Seems you can blame him for misusing language, but from the southern point of view, they attacked a foreign country, that then conquered them. They were kinda treated like conquered foreign territory, but there should have been an end to it.
SolidSnake179@reddit
From the moment a loose feral government order was established in the south, they were the enemy. I like the way you said the last part though. It really never was ended. I honestly think the James gang was technically the last holdout from the civil war. All their problems came from that time and continued. I know that's abstract view, but I look at roots and ties through history differently than a lot of people. I like looking at root causes. I think the surrender of Frank James was the ending.
HamboneTh3Gr8@reddit
Yep.
South Carolina seceded and ordered federal troops to surrender Fort Sumter and leave the state before Lincoln took office.
The federal government refused, and tried to resupply those troops for months.
The Confederate Army attacked the Fort after a 4-month standoff.
No one died during the two day Battle of Fort Sumter.
capt-bob@reddit
Was a bad idea apparently. Cuba was smart enough to leave Guantanamo alone.
HamboneTh3Gr8@reddit
Lesson of the day?
Just bend over and take it.
brenap13@reddit
The 14th amendment came after Lincoln’s death, but it killed a lot of the state sovereignty through the incorporation doctrine.
SARS2KilledEpstein@reddit
Sure go here and start looking at his Proclamations and Executive Orders. The proclamations are what contemporary executive orders are and the executive orders are actual orders like what they traditionally were. A TLDR is Lincoln declared an insurrection and issued military action without Congressional authorization. Suspended Habeas Corpus multiple times and more.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/people/president/abraham-lincoln
dachoochmeister@reddit
So much of this. Yeah he ended slavery, but he was more interested in preserving the union by instating gross federalism.
booveebeevoo@reddit
Sounds like democracy at its finest.
SolidSnake179@reddit
Man, there are so many things that I don't like saying because I LOVE Lincoln and he was a GREAT man. However he was not a perfect man and he suffered a lot of times from indecision and was bound in legalism, being a lawyer. There were often times in writings where he felt inadequate to approach situations and didn't really have the courage to push for major solutions until there was already no road to communication in any way. You could have given the Democrats the entire south and everything they wanted and it wouldn't have been enough. He and J.J. Crittenden were a lot alike. Crittenden's compromise was, in my belief, the only reason Lincoln was pushed to the decisions he made. It was, "okay, if this is all okay now, let's just set it in stone and be done." Obviously wisdom prevailed and Crittenden went home to preserve Kentucky and work for the union. It was an era where a really intelligent man had to put his mind in the places right try to understand things that weren't that good or intelligent. There was a lot of justified hatred towards the north on a few things like immigration/indenturement and on morality. New scottish/irish immigrant industrial labor hired in at slave wages was just as foul as slavery. There was a lot culturally that Lincoln's side had wrong too. Our nation was dying of illness all throughout the war as well. It was a far worse time than maybe history romanticised it to be. Lincoln was still an amazing man, but not as much as we are told.
clarkstud@reddit
He was a tyrant.
SkinyGuniea417@reddit
Who gave freedom to millions
clarkstud@reddit
At the cost of 750,000. Neo one is suggesting the freeing of slaves was a baad thing, however it's not wrong to imagine there could have been a more peaceful way.
NefariousnessFirm520@reddit
Here’s a good podcast episode about Lincoln.
“An avowed white supremacist, known for lying and lethargy, who exhibited traits of psychopathy at a young age, Lincoln would grow up to be America’s first, but not last dictator. In this episode, we take a detailed look at how and why Lincoln manufactured war with the South, his crimes against humanity, and his shredding of the Constitution.”
https://theagora.libsyn.com/abraham-lincoln-american-dirtbag
elganador0@reddit
Thomas DiLorenzo is the President of the Mises Institute and a professor of Economics who has written several books denouncing Abraham Lincoln. Basically he says Lincoln acted out of line by expanding federal power to unprecedented heights.
Some of what he says is true. Lincoln conducted the first draft, suspended habeus corpus, and conducted a war against his own countrymen despite, according to DiLorenzo, rebel territories being perfectly within their rights to secede. He paints Lincoln as a white supremacist who opposed equal rights for black Americans and instigated the civil war primarily to enforce certain tariff policies to protect American revenue and centralize the government, not for the express purpose of abolishing slavery.
From what I understand, a lot of what he says is supported by historical documents. But historians have been critical of his conclusions, claiming that he avoids certain information and the context of Lincoln's statements and actions.
Tracieattimes@reddit
I had also wondered this, so thank you for some very objective information. I have a little bit of a problem thinking of Lincoln as a warmonger because the end it was the shelling of Fort Sumter by the confederacy kicked off the war. Did he pursue to a conclusion? Absolutely And the idea that Lincoln conducted the war to abolish slavery is a myth whose origin I don’t understand. Lincoln himself said he didn’t care about slavery one way or the other as long as the Union was preserved. He only came into the belief that slavery should be abolished late in the war. Still, he should be credited for making it happen and for waging peace as the war ended. We could use a leader like that today.
As for the measures he took to pursue the war, we have been deprived of the knowledge of what he was going to do with them by his untimely assassination. There is probably evidence from his other acts that speaks to whether or not he would continue or abolish those measures. Unfortunately, I am not enough of a student of him To be able to make arguments one way or another.
elganador0@reddit
I agree with you. One historian in response to Thomas DiLorenzo notes that it was impossible to handle the issue of slavery without rebel hostility. Tensions were so high that even the mere idea of Lincoln or Congress touching slavery in the south was not feasible. This is definitely true. Lincoln merely getting elected led to multiple states drafting declarations of secession.
Lincoln opposed slavery on moral grounds his entire life. But politically he did not wish to abolish slavery. Only to prevent it's expansion to new territories. In my estimation, as irreconcilable as he found slavery to be with the Constitution, he knew it was too hotly contested of an issue to outright outlaw.
The Emancipation Proclamation was more of military and political tactic than a moral decision but as you mentioned what followed changed his view. He was moved by the bravery of black Union soldiers. According to Lincoln, the war could not have been won without them. The black freedmen not only increased the size of Union war effort but offered useful intel on the southern countryside due to their experience with the terrain.
Some of what Thomas DiLorenzo says is seemingly correct. Some of it is seemingly not. Or at least not supported by historians. But I think Lincoln genuinely meant well in his efforts and operated in a way that was fair and otherwise sound and moral.
tydiz68@reddit
Lincoln’s passion was always for the principles of liberty in the Declaration of Independence, especially the principle that “all men are created equal.” Lincoln abhorred slavery, and it was a position that led him to the Republican Party.
The Republican Party was born over the issue of ending slavery. It was the single and largest issue that united them at the time.
LibertarianLawyer@reddit
Well, the first, most obvious reason is that Lincoln was a president, meaning he was the titular head of a government. Libertarians generally believe that the government is a criminal gang.
Second, Lincoln carried on a war resulting in 600k dead, and the war was motivated by preventing people from leaving the union of states that they no longer consented to being governed by. Even for non-libertarians, this is a clear betrayal of the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which referred to governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[.]" (To be clear, the United States Constitution created a slave nation-state that was, like any other nation-state, premised on rights violations including taxation, eminent domain, monopoly courts, etc., so it was never "legitimate," since it was created for illicit purposes.)
jyper@reddit
Lincoln spread a lot more liberty the Coolidge and Libertarians seem to like him
The war was started by the Confederate traitors. Lincoln did all he could to avoid war
Self determination doesn't make for a very good defense of the south when you consider that in many states close to half the population was enslaved.
Lincoln enabled the Declaration to sound somewhat less hypocritical by ending slavery and protected the Constitution.
It was a motivator. Not the primary motivator but one that increased over the course of the war. Also avoiding another evil war by ending slavery was a motivator.
It's rarely more clear cut then this where one side is clearly much more evil and just wrong
LibertarianLawyer@reddit
If you think you can rigorously net out how much liberty a politician spread, you really don't understand (or accept) one of the core features of radical libertarianism, which is a recognition that it is impossible to run the central planner's calculus for production of goods and services.
I would say that this calculation problem is also impossible with respect to running a hedonistic calculus for purposes of operationalizing a utilitarian ethic. Utilitarian justifications of theft, murder, rape, arson, enslavement (whether via conscription or chattel slavery), and other evil deeds all fail. These acts cannot be justified, no matter what end is sought.
1) "He started it" is something kids say. It is not a justification for a campaign of total war against a civilian population.
2) Radical libertarians don't believe in "treason" as a legitimate offense. Read Lysander Spooner's many essays on this topic for a thorough explanation of why treason is nonsense. TL;DR version: you cannot properly owe allegiance to a criminal gang, and the social contract theory is nonsense.
Except not participating in one.
The right way to beat slavery was to allow the South to isolate itself. As Thornton and Ekelund pointed out in their short economic history of the war, the South's own protectionist policies were economic suicide.
What was important to Lincoln was "preserving the union," i.e., preserving and in fact massively increasing national control of the Southern states.
It is a founding principle of the secessionist slave nation that broke away from Britain. Lincoln claimed these principles as his own, but clearly was a hypocrite. American secessionists have always viewed themselves as patriots.
What a wonderful altar to sacrifice 600,000 men on: protecting a compact between politicians.
I call for the immediate abolition of the government created by that Constitution.
It was used more heavily as a rhetorical prop as the war progressed. And that was a cause of race riots in New York and elsewhere, so vehement was the opposition to the sacrifice of men and boys for preservation of the federal government's hegemony in the name of abolitionism. Unfortunately, this also bred a racial hatred that resulted in racially motivated murders of black men during those riots.
Anyone that wants to rule another person is wrong. That is true for politicians just as surely as it is true for slaveowners.
Ok-Contribution6337@reddit
Awful take. He didn't "fight for ending slavery". He fought for the same evil reason King George did--because he believed he had the right to rule a people without their consent.
sic semper tyrannis.
vikesinja@reddit
He genocided quite a few indigenous people.
SANcapITY@reddit
Because he cared for his precious union more than he cared about the people in it. The war was completely unnecessary, and he himself said he would fight to save the union even if it had no impact on slavery.
Slaver was the main reason for Southern secession. The main reason for the war was Lincoln.
Suspension of habeus corpus, imprisoning journalists and congressmen...
throwawaylegal1293@reddit
“The main reason for war was Lincoln” this is factually incorrect.
The slave holding Southern states had been rattling their sabres and threatening war and secession for decades prior to Lincoln. The last flare up prior to Lincoln was during President Jackson’s administration.
Notably, SC and several other Southern states seceded before Lincoln even took office. And Lincoln tried to avoid war right up to SC assaulting and bombarding Ft. Sumter April 1961.
Aquila_Fotia@reddit
Major Anderson refused to leave and Buchanan then Lincoln chose to escalate, even when no one died.
throwawaylegal1293@reddit
“Even when no one died.”
It’s a miracle that no one died. I can assure you the Confederate forces bombarding the fort weren’t trying to miss them with their shells. They assaulted a US fort and officially kicked off the Civil War. The escalation was all their own.
Say what you want about Lincoln, but I’m not gonna stand here and allow the Confederates to be framed as a victim in all this.
Aquila_Fotia@reddit
A US fort? In South Carolina, which had just seceded?
Bearing in mind Major Anderson moved his garrison in after the independence declaration, and had 4 months in which he could have changed his mind and left. Or Lincoln could have ordered him to leave, but he chose to attempt to resupply what from a certain point of view is a force of occupation in a foreign territory.
jyper@reddit
Illegal succession attempt on US soil. Lincoln practically begged them to compromise and not fight a war against their own country even after they had committed treason.
Aquila_Fotia@reddit
There may not have been any provision for secession in the constitution, but there wasn't afaik one forbidding it. As others said, Lincoln would go on to use the latter principle (i.e. no laws against it means there's permission to do it) to become de facto dictator, suspending habeas corpus, massacring protestors, jailing journalists and apparently Representatives too. Saying that secession in pre Civil War America is illegal is arguing on the former principle (i.e. you can only do the limited number of things the constitution provides for). Arguing the former principle when it comes to states' rights to secede and the latter principle when it comes to Lincoln's attempts to prevent said secession is inconsistent.
The United States used to be referred to as These United States, as others have commented it was understood that the Union was something entered into by voluntarily by pre existing states, which surely implies states could leave voluntarily. Many states had threatened secession before over political issues at a federal level.
Regardless of the legal rights (I'm sure secession has been illegal in most times and places!), there's moral arguments too. As a British person, its my view a Yank has no leg to stand on when they argue that secession of a Dixie is illegal. The 1776 Declaration was at least as illegal and treasonous as the 1860-61 declarations.
I also don't buy that Lincoln "begged them [the South Carolians/ The Confederacy] to compromise and not fight a war." Didn't he immediately call for a massive army expansion right after Sumter? A situation he could have deecalated by ordering Major Anderson to leave, but escalated by his determination to extend their stay via resupply?
Longjumping-Board211@reddit
He basically went full dictator and suspended Habeas Corpus to ensure key states wouldn’t seceded as well as being a hypocrite about slavery and people still have a rose tinted view of him because he “abolished slavery” even though it existed years after it was made federal law in some areas, he also believed black Americans were still inferior but i guess that part was common back then
DoomsdayTheorist1@reddit
Because his face is on the $5 bill and the $5 bill has Federal Reserve Note written on it. End the Fed.
Charles07v@reddit
Does the end justify the means?
Libertarians are STRONGLY aligned with ending slavery but not with the way it was done in the USA.
Almost every country in the world had stavery at some point in their history, but no other country in the world had to fight a civil war to end it. Slavery could have ended so much more peacefully with much less bloodshed.
aztracker1@reddit
I'm going to disagree on this. You only need to look at Bleeding Kansas events to see that this would likely come to significant bloodshed. It likely would have come down to another half century of slavery at least if physical conflict hadn't happened, but also would have weakened the nation as a whole.
divinecomedian3@reddit
Killing hundreds of thousands of people probably weakened the nation much more than having slavery for a few more decades would have
jyper@reddit
Lincoln didn't start a war to end slavery. He was elected with the pan of gradually ending slavery in decades and pro slavery politicians instead of allowing that saw his election as a sign of the end of slavery and decided they would rather commit treason and rebellion then allow that to happen. Lincoln tried to reason with them to prevent a war but they weren't listening. Then afterwards with the war having already cost so much of course he's going to at least end slavery
aztracker1@reddit
Should someone be forced to stay in a relationship they don't want to be in?
HarryWaters@reddit
Probably. But, Lincoln was pretty adamant that he wasn't going to end slavery. The South didn't believe him and started seizing Federal government property. That all escalated, but I don't think Lincoln meant to end slavery with a war. My understanding of the whole situation was that it was a game of chicken, and each side never moved, and never meant to collide.
jyper@reddit
He didn't mean to end slavery with a war. Lincoln was a gradualist he believed slavery was evil but that you had to fight it slowly and get rid of it over the course of decades after adding more free states to the union. He was also supportive of compensated emancipation but the pro slavery politicians weren't interested
jyper@reddit
Haiti fought a revolution to end slavery
natermer@reddit
Lincoln is just a moderately large part of a much bigger fuck-up.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the structure of the Federal government that they needed to go to war over slavery and taxation.
Slavery was practiced world-wide by practically all cultures and all parts of the world. South East Asia, Middle Asia, Western Asia, Europe, Africa, South America and North America.
It was ubiquitous.
It didn't end all peacefully. There was slave revolts in the Caribbean. The British Empire carried out a massive effort to systematically wipe out all slavery in Africa.. sending British men marching all over Africa to hunt down warlords that practiced slavery.
But the USA was the only country that had to go to war with itself to end it.
The way the civil war is presented in USA educational system is a caricature. The way they teach it and the way they present it is like they want you to believe that all of a sudden, out of the blue, a bunch of Liberal Democrats showed up in the North and wanted to get rid of slavery and Evil Conservatives in the South hated them so they left the Union and then it took Lincoln to come in and set the slaves free with the Emancipation Proclamation.
But that is a insane way to see things.
For the first part.. the Federal government was instrumental in protecting the institution of slavery in the USA.
Why didn't it just die off in the USA like everywhere else?
Lincoln said over and over again that the point of the war wasn't to free the slaves.
Slavery remained legal in the North well after the Emancipation Proclamation.
etc etc etc.
tydiz68@reddit
Lincoln and the northern more liberal faction that wanted to end slavery were Republicans. The southern slave owners who wanted slavery to stay were almost all Democrats, and while they were technically conservatives at the time, you can’t really compare today’s conservatives and their values to them. It was a different time with an entirely different set of issues.
StriderTX@reddit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pZG7snE7tU&t=2846s&pp=ygURcmF6b3JmaXN0IGxpbmNvbG4%3D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py5kiAjL59k&pp=ygURcmF6b3JmaXN0IGxpbmNvbG4%3D
CidB91@reddit
Cause he wiped his ass with the Constitution?
steph-anglican@reddit
Evidence?
CidB91@reddit
Maybe start with his record of locking up journalists.
My opinion is he gets a free pass cause of slavery (which he really didn’t care about too much if you read his own words
bongobutt@reddit
The constitution only refers to the states in the plural. The United States "are" . It is never the United States "is" . This distinction is important, because it gets to the heart of what the federation of States actually is. Before, it was an agreement between equals entered into by consent. After, it was a right of the group to dominate the lesser. This fundamental change inevitably leads to the end of liberty, because liberty and consent of the governed is no longer the justification for the union. The benevolence and righteous aim of the union is the justification. It doesn't matter if the "aim" of that union is supposedly "liberty." The fact is that States are required to give up liberty so that the Feds can give them liberty. If that sounds strange to you - it should. There are lots of details and examples you could get into with Lincoln's decisions and administration, but the definition of the spirit of the Union gets to the essence of the issue. Lincoln is more responsible than anyone else for the bastardization of the constitution that we experience today. Others have accelerated it, but Lincoln provided the precedent and moral propaganda for it.
steph-anglican@reddit
Um, one can argue about the desirability of secession as a constitutional principal in the abstract, but as a matter of law, our first constitution has the opening words, "The Articles of Confederation and PREPETUAL Union."
bongobutt@reddit
From the Articles of Confederation (emphasis added):
The meaning of perpetual here may have multiple implications, but it is clear in context that the primary purpose is to say that the responsibilities of the states cannot be abdicated. This is not a temporary grant, lease, or charter. This is a permanent contract. Thus, if one party doesn't live up to their end of the bargain, there is to be consequences. I hope you can see why the South thought they had legal grounds when the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, but the Northern States (with no vote or process) just decided to ignore the law and change the rules in their favor. I get it - no one today likes slavery, so they are more than willing to read back whatever outcome they want into the law and into history. But even if the South was morally wrong by today's standards, that doesn't mean that the North was justified in the legal stance they chose. The law specifically prescribes the process for this: if you want to change the law, then you vote on it and the states approve it. The South didn't feel like the North was doing that. And if you are in a contract (even one without an end date) and one party doesn't hold up their end, then what is the argument saying that the contract still applies in full force to the party acting in good faith, but doesn't apply to the party in violation? How does that make sense? Again: just because we have dramatically different views of slavery doesn't mean we can just interpret the law however we like. It also doesn't mean that the North had even remotely the same values or motivations that we currently have. We don't get to just read the reality that we want into history. We don't get to write a group in history that we identity with as righteous because it makes us feel good.
Randsrazor@reddit
Basically some of the states were feeling like battered wives and when they tried to get a divorce they they got the biggest beating ever.
throwawaylegal1293@reddit
Not sure I would frame the slave-holding South as a battered wife. It implies the South wasn’t courting outright war for the decades leading up to the civil war.
Randsrazor@reddit
Well, the south was heavily scotch-Irish lol
steph-anglican@reddit
What was this beating? Having an abolitionist elected president who was willing to give them sole power over their "domestic institutions"?
BennyOcean@reddit
Exactly. The CW proved that the union of the "United" states is not a voluntary union. It is forced.
ghostoftomjoad69@reddit
Liberty to enslave others.
BennyOcean@reddit
Because he was a tyrant.
Jolly_Job_9852@reddit
While not a full libertarian but a Republican(yes downvote me) I despise Honest Abe and the fact the GOP wants to brand itself as the Party of Lincoln. I made the case for this on the Presidental subreddit and was widely criticized for stating Lincoln was a Tyrant. There is no justified reason for the suspension of civil liberties.
jyper@reddit
I'm a liberal democrat. I didn't downvote you for being a Republican but for the nonsense our greatest president. You were criticized for good reason. Lincoln was in no way a tyrant. A civil war is a difficult and complicated thing and you could argue that some of his actions weren't the best but he kept the country together, ended slavery and preserved liberal democracy.
Jolly_Job_9852@reddit
Imprisonment of journalists in Maryland and other states is a Constitutional violation as this it's an attack on the freedom of Press. That in itself should be seen as tyrannical. I not going to downvote you for having an opposing viewpoint. I respectfully disagree. My main argument is that there's isn't any justified reason to suspend civil liberties. Any President who suspends civil liberties of anyone I would consider a tyrant.
Augusto2012@reddit
I always liked Ron Paul’s idea to end slavery, would’ve been cheaper and would’ve avoid the civil war.
jyper@reddit
If his solution wa compensated emancipation then he should give credit to a guy that actually pushed for it at the time A. Lincoln.
Problem is the southern "leaders" we re simply not interested.
Now it's true that borrowing that much would be difficult but it's not totally infeasible compared to ridiculous costs of the war. The main problem is that Slavers didn't want to agree to that. Even Slavers in moderate border states that stayed with the union didn't agree to that, in the end Lincoln was only able to carry out compensated emancipation in DC.
throwawaylegal1293@reddit
Ron Paul’s solution wasn’t feasible.
Slave labor was significantly more important to the Southern agrarian economy than it was for the British and French at this time period.
British and French slaves were held in plantation colonies in the West Indies and while they did provide some products like sugar they were only a small part of a much larger and diversified economy. Compare this to the US South whose economy was completely invested in cash crops.
Great Britain used a loan to pay off the slave holders, and wouldn’t finish paying THAT off until 2015.
Further, Southern aristocrats had a vested interest in stopping emancipation. They were already terrified of poor whites and free blacks joining forces. They would do everything in their power to stop free blacks from having any power, especially political power, when black slaves completely outnumbered their white counterparts in several states.
Pure-Anything-585@reddit
United State's civil war was absolutely over slavery, but that is a VERY caricaturized description of this war. Way bigger questions were being resolved and to make it look like the Federal government was in the right, it is a narrative now. It is an 1861 equivalent of Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction narrative. Lincoln wasn't some hippy one love one earth liberal and considered black people as property or at the very least second class people. Promising freedom to the slaves was just a bone that he decided to throw out there to get support for the forcefully attaching the southern states.
elliottok@reddit
bc many libertarians are racists who have no problem with human slavery plain and simple
Randsrazor@reddit
I would argue that most libertarians CHIEF concern IS slavery, namely our own slavery to taxes, and inflation. Congrats we freed you from the cotton fields but your grandkids are gonna be 50% of their income financial slaves.
elliottok@reddit
yeah paying taxes is just like being a slave. not to mention most people probably pay like 12% tax. definitely same thing as being owned and traded by someone. really tough call on which is preferred.
divinecomedian3@reddit
Just two different flavors of slavery. Sure chattel slavery is worse, but the form we're under now is by no means good.
Berreta_topg239@reddit (OP)
Wow, isn’t that a nuanced answer to a complex question, I’m sure your a great person to have political discussions with
Barskor1@reddit
Lincon is a great example of why governments can't be trusted because no matter the laws against X being done by government and the rights of the people acknowledged and "Protected" they will just monkey ass shit all over it in order to keep or expand their power.
steph-anglican@reddit
Because they are neo confederates LARPing as libertarians. Though one should remember that he did things that were constitutionally dubious. e.g. West Virginia.
dzoefit@reddit
He's dead, who cares??
Sledgecrowbar@reddit
Beard no mustache is a bold but very unorthodox choice for a man. It was polarizing.
ENTitled__Prick@reddit
Took power from states and gave it to the federal government.
Alternative-Appeal43@reddit
America's first dictator
Seversaurus@reddit
He was one of the few times in history where you have a leader suspending rights to accomplish something good but that comes with a pretty big asterisk. He wasn't super popular when he was alive and if he hadn't been assassinated he likely would be looked on as favorably but it's hard to ignore that he was vital to ending the stain of slavery. I think some libertarians see his actions and come to the conclusion that the juice wasn't worth the squeeze but that just makes them look like slavery apologists which isn't a good look even for libertarians which often have pretty controversial takes. I personally don't know if there are any current day issues that would warrant the extreme measures taken to alleviate them but it's important not to miss the forest for the trees.
cstatus94@reddit
Problem I have with a lot of my fellow Libertarians. They think being "right" is the only things that matter but optics matter too in politics.
Wildebeast27@reddit
IMO optics matter 10x more than being "right"
soggyGreyDuck@reddit
Wait, other libertarians don't like Lincoln too!? I did not know this lol. I get downvoted to hell when I bring my reasons up.
TheRealPhoenix182@reddit
He chose the fed (and really just presidential authority) over the Republic, states rights, the Constitution, etc.
Did he want to end slavery? Most likely. Was that the key driving factor behind what he did? No chance. It was always about 'preserving the union', and by that he meant specifically federal executive authority and a forced union.
Montananarchist@reddit
He was an authoritarian, who violated the city rights of millions and led a huge power grab: Lincoln, himself, said that he would still have went to war with the southern states even if it wouldn't free any slaves. He singlehandedly destroyed two of the amendments in the "Bill of Rights" the ninth, and tenth.
tclass@reddit
You're right. Everyone deserves to be free. That's why the slavocracy of the south was evil and the crushing of the confederacy was just. You really don't have to tie yourself into a knot retconning Lincoln into some monster.
It's also true that the civil war was the birth of the modern US state that we oppose. History is complicated, but I don't think you get off on the best foot trying contort into a Lincoln/North bad, pro Calhoun position. The civil war was the triumph of FREE labor economy over a slave labor economy.
legend_of_wiker@reddit
Bc he a dictator through n through
AutoModerator@reddit
New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more? Be sure to check out the sub Frequently Asked Questions and the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.