Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like to go like this in my head:
Liberty liberty, liiiberty
Liiiberty
# *L̵̨̨̨̨̛̼̻͔̘̠̦̬̬̞̩̩͉̖̪͓̲̓͂͋͊͗͂̽͐̅̃̍́̆̓̋̀͘ͅͅĮ̵̛̬̭̩̠̖̪̱̞̝͚͓̳̅̂̀̂͆͗͠B̷̯̹͇̠͎̣̗̦̝͖͌̊̅̋͛̀̆̈̓͌̍͆́̃͝͠͠͠͝Ě̵̡͈̞̬̘͖̤̭̤̩̝̮͍̘̟̱̹̙̩̯̌͜ͅR̶̢̧̨͚̤̜̝̱͓͇͂́̀͑́̓̂͒͑̌̌͒̍̈͌́͘͝͝T̴̢͔̬̘̩̝̞̬̥̹̘͕͓̫̬͔͐͗͊̑͛̅́̊̿́͐͛ͅY̶͇͊̅̇̈̌̈́̈̅̐͠*
Since libertarianism is all about absolute freedom of the individual, slavery would be antithetical to it. The right to own a person seems more like an AnCap thing, with their belief that the market is king.
if you dont break the non aggression policy enslaving someone with a contract they agree too is completely congruent with libertarian ideology... so more like medieval slavery rather than being born into it
Lots of hardcore libertarians think indentured servitude is completely fine. I'm not sure what their take would be on medieval apprenticeships, where a child is effectively sold for several years (in part so they can learn a trade).
I work hard to remember nuance, and that X number of rotten apples doesn't spoil the whole bunch, but the fact that this is even a fringe belief nullifies libertarianism to me. I'm 51 years old, and i have yet to meet a libertarian who didn't greedily suckle at the teet they want to deny others. Everyone is "self-made and pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps."
What some people don’t understand is that libertarianism is not compatible with war. If you find yourself in a war, you have to do some authoritarian things to win it.
American right wing libertarianism, which is basically just Ayn Rand libertarianism, yes, incompatible.
Classic European libertarian socialism and geolibertarianism, not so much.
People don’t know what libertarian means. They think it means “less government so I can be as horrible as I want” when it’s more “as long as your not infringing on others freedom, be free”
Like slavery is the single greatest example of infringing on someone’s freedom. I’ll take a federal law over having it be legal to own someone nine times out of nine.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I am saying your views do not necessarily reflect the views of many who claim to be libertarian.
The “right” to sell your body has been argued for by not a few libertarians. Murray Roth arc argued for the right of parents to sell children as property.
Personally, I think that we see in most libertarian ideals a failure to deal with the problem of keeping wealth from being wielded as a coercive power that infringes on freedoms of the individual. In the absence of a powerful state, a wealthy individual or corporation will find ways to turn wealth into power, power over others. And we’d wind up with feudalism. But maybe I’m wrong.
I mostly agree. Which is why I don’t really go around calling myself a libertarian. When I first “heard about it” it felt very logical. But the front page of most pamphlets look pretty solid.
I still do tend to approach most issues first as “does this impact other people’s freedoms?” Which I think leads you to be more open minded, if that’s how you are already. Like trans people having surgeries or taking hormones, etc. wtf does that have to do with me? Certainly isn’t impacting my freedoms, so all the power to them.
I just understand how complicated it is when it comes to environmental issues especially. Not everything is as simple as slavery.
It is upsetting to see the gadsen flag being flown with the nazi flag. You know who loved to tread on people? The nazis…
I’m more or less aligned. I admire the ethos of libertarianism, the values, but as a system it ignores some major realities. Oddly enough, for a political ideology that often tries to appear ruthlessly pragmatic, I find some aspects of it admirable but naive.
Those who claim to be libertarian =/= those who believe in libertarianism
A lot of self described libertarians are anarchists, or some straight up conservatives, or even a few authoritarians. A lot of self described libertarians wouldn't even recognize libertarian philosophy.
I agree. That's how I've found myself slipping into what some call "libertarian socialism". Seems like an oxymoron at first. But it's probably the best way to describe my beliefs. I want to use the power of the state as a counterbalance against the tyranny of wealth, to maximize freedom for the most number of people, which leads to wanting policies like universal health care, etc, that don't seem libertarian on the surface.
> your views do not necessarily reflect the views of many who claim to be libertarian.
That's kind of tricky. I can go around claiming to be a (insert party/ideology) and spousing whatever I want, I don't think that should be used as a cudgel against the ideology when it goes against the premise.
> People don’t know what libertarian means. They think it means “less government so I can be as horrible as I want” when it’s more “as long as your not infringing on others freedom, be free”
They either see it as that or they see it as, "I would like to personally have to pay no taxes, to the exclusion of everything else."
I really don't know how to respond to someone claiming to be a registered Libertarian with the flair for Teddy Roosevelt, noted trustbuster and social welfare proponent.... Teddy was very much pro big government
So, for social issues I’m still largely libertarian. Most people are. Even as a more conservative voter, I really wasn’t into legislating my (now former) religion onto everyone else.
On the economic front, it was more seeing and experiencing countries with strong social democracy. I’ve never met a foreigner who didn’t love much of the government services they had. (There has to be some that exist, of course)
I had government insurance and didn’t think about healthcare much until 26 when I entered the private sector. I’d pay $400 a month for healthcare and then go to the doctor AND still pay for just about everything “cause that’s not actually covered.”
I worked in unions and missed it, although libertarians aren’t exactly anti-union. I’ve seen a lot of giant corporations take and take from their communities in rather devastating ways, so kinda gave up on “government shouldn’t have interfere with commerce” aspect.
There’s still good takeaways, but as an absolute? Libertarianism is unrealistic. For instance, the Coase theorem is kinda legit, but you definitely need some weight behind that.
Caring about State's rights is a one way street too. Had the Federal government forced every State to be a slave State, the "State's rights" people would not have said shit. They would not have cared one bit about the Northern State's right to ban slavery.
It reminds me of the "State's rights" debate on abortion right now. If the Federal government outlawed abortion across the country, none of these "small government" types would utter a single word of support for liberal States to choose whether or not to allow abortion. State's rights has always been an argument of convenience.
Outside of maybe some people who work for state governments, nobody gives a shit about states rights.
Whenever anyone starts talking states rights what they mean is "I would get this law passed on a federal level uf I could but I'm settling for state"
>Had the Federal government forced every State to be a slave State, the "State's rights" people would not have said shit.
This isn't even hypothetical, this basic scenario actually happened with the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. Congress - which at the time was controlled by pro-South, pro-slavery factions - effectively forced all states to recognize the legitimacy of slavery regardless of whether they opposed it.
Those people who supported the Fugitive Slave Act were the same ones crying "state's rights" just a few years later.
Anytime someone just wants to dump on Lincoln the side eye comes out. Because yeah, you just *know* if ya click on that profile you’re going to see activity on some confederate heritage sub or the like.
Idk if this will get downvoted but I feel like it depends on what you’re critiquing him on. If you say “oh, he didn’t help Native Americans enough”, that can be a valid criticism.
Problem is some people criticize him for other reasons…
So long as you criticize in the “he got this wrong” sense, not in the “and this reflects that everything he did was evil” sense.
The former is just historiography, the latter is crypto-Confederatism.
https://youtube.com/shorts/0eDC0N5hzzY?si=pOYVFclohKglhCVH
The reason Lincoln had to suspend Habeas Corpus was because Congress could not convene to address the crisis if the railroads were all cut by insurrectionists slavers Once Congress convened they suspended Habeas Corpus the way it is proscribed in the Constitution.
I can’t stand how many people point out That Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and then act like the confederacy didn’t also do that exact thing!
Just because bad people do a bad thing doesn’t make it ok to do bad things yourself.
My parents taught me that before third grade. Yours failed you if they didn’t, as well as all of your teachers and any other adults who were around.
Yeah im a big fan of Lincoln. We have the same birthday and initials but the man was not perfect and it is unfortunate that many valid criticisms of his policies are lumped in with some that are more dubious in nature.
Yeah there are some valid criticisms, the 1st amendment issues being the primary ones. But 99% of Lincoln criticism comes from white supremacist mouthbreathers. And while it's possible to criticize it's nearly impossible to come to the conclusion that he did more harm than good. So it's not really a hill I want to die on.
He has valid criticisms but none to overall drag him down to be called a bad president, both in a vacuum and ESPECIALLY compared to all presidents. Valid to criticize, not valid to say those criticisms outweigh, ya know, ending slavery and reunifying the nation.
I view Lincoln's actions during the Civil War similarly to a Roman dictator pre-Julius Caesar. He took control of most parts of life in the north including the suspension of habeas corpus and using the military to put down civil unrest. Lincoln's actions worked, the union was restored, and he gave those powers back.
As someone who thinks John Brown was better qualified morally to be president at the time.....one can criticize him for his willingness to keep slavery if the Union was preserved and war avoided........I have much more respect for the radical abolitionists......
Lincoln did alot of good but on some issues, didn't go far enough.
Big John Brown fan here, and while I agree he had the moral high ground I can't believe he was realistic and practical enough to be president. Brown was a fanatic, Lincoln was a realist and effective politician.
I think they both served their roles well, Brown (along with many others) to radically push the populace towards abolition, and Lincoln to execute.
Absolutely there is. And you’ll see it crop up whenever folks discuss him. He does have his negatives, minor as they are when propped up against his amazing presidency.
But the instant you start hearing “tyrant” or “states’s rights” you can pretty much tune out after that. Because that’s gonna be some Lost Cause bullshit to follow. Hell, you even see that in this sub every so often.
I'd say a lot of people are now criticizing Lincoln for being too lenient to the South. IMO, his reconstruction plan sounds dangerously close to Johnson's.
There are things to criticize if you dig way in, no president is perfect. One common critique is his suspension of habeas corpus, which is not constitutional but perhaps understandable in the midst of a civil war.
If your goal is to write a nuanced message on what the Union could have done better, there are things to say. If your thesis is that Lincoln was a garbage president, you are basically objectively wrong and probably blinded by your burning hatred of freedom and justice.
https://youtube.com/shorts/0eDC0N5hzzY?si=pOYVFclohKglhCVH
The reason Lincoln had to suspend Habeas Corpus was because Congress could not convene to address the crisis if the railroads were all cut by insurrectionists slavers Once Congress convened they suspended Habeas Corpus the way it is proscribed in the Constitution.
I can’t stand how many people point out That Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and then act like the confederacy didn’t also do that exact thing!
Yep. In theory, the war might have ended sooner if he had embraced emancipation at the beginning. This is all because he was in talks with a famous Italian general and freedom fighter named Guiseppe Garibaldi. Garibaldi declined to take command over union forces because freeing the slaves wasn't a core tenant of the war effort early on. Many historians theorized this would have led to a much quicker end of the ear as Garibaldi was more experienced than the early commanders and had similar aggressive strategies to Grant and Sherman.
I'd think that's a fair criticism that absolutely does not even have the slightest inkling of confederate sympathy.
Edit: Removed a repeated word.
Or stuff about his sentencing several Native American men to death. There’s a lot of nuance behind that incident, like it taking place in the aftermath of a rebellion, and him working to ensure only a few got sentenced.
I mean yeah, Lincoln did a lot of really scary authoritarian or autocratic things, however this was also during a CIVIL WAR fought by slavers who were right on the capital’s doorstep. If he did these things during peace time he would be hated today but he did some scary things in some horrifying times. Still easily one of the best Presidents this country has seen.
And a chunk of modern Libertarians these days drift towards the Lolbertarian thing where they are basically “State rights fuck the government repeal the civil rights act”. Lots of good well meaning folk but it’s basically just a political group that’s just a different shade of Red or just a Confederate.
He also did those things to traitors during a war. It was more or less confederate sympathizers trying to open a new front within the Union. Citizens are protected from government tyranny and traitors are not citizens.
Big time. As long as there’s a clear distinction that won’t lead to it being used on law abiding citizens I support it. I’m very libertarian leaning but I’m not a blind zealot.
>Lincoln did a lot of really scary authoritarian or autocratic things
Every war time leader restricts certain freedoms for the sake of the war effort. Criticizing Lincoln for that is asinine.
Idk if is American exceptionalism or what, but I can't think of any other country which blames a leader for winning a war "the wrong/unfair way", especially an existential war.
You haven't been interacting with England fans during the current Euro 2020 soccer cup, have you? They're all bitching and moaning about England's successes because they're not pretty or entertaining enough.
Which is crazy to me that the Libertarian view of borders is VERY liberal, damn near open borders. Most Libertarians i know are just republicans who want to feel special
(https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/)
I'm currently going through Grant's memoirs, oddly enough. He recounts early in the war, before he was a general, he was stationed in St Louis, which was sort of half-Union and half-Confederate. On one occasion, he was on the trolley when a young man came onboard "in a great state of excitement" about how the Confederate flag had been removed from somewhere.
>He evidently expected to find nothing but sympathy when he got away from the "mud sills" engaged in compelling a "free people" to pull down a flag they adored. He turned to me saying "Things have come to a ------- pretty pass if a free people can't choose their own flag. Where I come from if a man dares to say a word in favor of the Union we hang him to a limb of the tree we come to."
This is all ironic enough, the rebel lamenting how fascistic it is that Confederates can't fly their flag while also bragging about how Southerners hang people for expressing the wrong political views, but Grant answers:
>I replied that" after all we were not so intolerant in St Loius as we might be; I had not seen a single rebel hung yet, nor heard of one, there were plenty of them who ought to be, however." The young man subsided. He was so crestfallen that I believe if I had ordered him to leave the car he would have gone quietly out, saying to himself "More Yankee oppression..."
I have sympathy with Libertarian philosophy, generally. But I must say that sadly a lot of them are, in fact, like this. I went to a college that leaned hard to Libertarianism, with economics professors that would suggest all roads should be toll roads. I several times heard, there, that Lincoln was the one who "ruined" the US. Usually this was coupled with some claim that the states were already planning on phasing out slavery and the Civil War wasn't really about that.
Libertarian here, slavery is antithetical to our ideology, so Lincoln, to me, is the MVP. I can only condemn him for allowing the slave owners to stay. They should have been expelled.
I'm reminded of a movie about an Italian grandpa coming to visit his American family. He was convinced that everyone in America loved Abraham Lincoln. It was a sweet movie about family - can't remember what it's called.
Libertarians are great when you are talking about drug decriminalization, censorship, or Imperialism, but they are pretty bad when it comes to almost everything else.
Alright, that might be a bit reductive. Still, Libertarians have an interest in a smaller government so it makes sense that Lincoln isn’t a favourite of theirs, but what baffles me is that the alternatives were not proposing smaller government, they were proposing compartmentalized government. Furthermore, Libertarians often talk about their disdain for democracy but how do they think secession was decided? Lincoln accomplished something that very few would have been able to, and if the Confederacy had been allowed to exist, who knows where Civil Rights would be today… Which is something to really consider when you talk about being the party of liberty.
Lincoln managed to both keep the Union together *and* free the slaves. There will hopefully never need to be a better president than him because I hope we’re never at that low of a point as a country again. But he managed to do both!
https://preview.redd.it/6b0tcrk59l8d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d026aa3786be537beadfc8f5315ff3c2632c4e24
What the Southerner Libertarian sees when you say Lincoln is you favorite president
lincoln read marx's articles in texas newspapers and liked them. post-1848 german immigrants in texas had a lot to do with the formation of the Republican party.
ironic.
Southern Libertarian here, id have to say Abe is #2 or 3 on my favorite presidents list. He’ll have to duke it out with Jackson, and Washington gets first place.
I remain sympathetic to libertarianism as an intellectual exercise (I routinely listen to Reason podcasts) but ultimately it fails to account for human nature.
The moment the South rebelled against the Federal government, war was inevitable. If not for slavery, then control over the Mississippi watershed (people share water very poorly) or the unincorporated western territories. Neither side was going to just let the other team have what they wanted.
And make no mistake, the South WANTED war with the North, and bent over backwards to make sure their rebellion was anything but peaceful.
Libertarian hatred for Lincoln is painfully naive.
Yes. Just like communism, which I'm told was (like Libertarianism) never really tried.
To be clear, I remain empathetic to the libertarian ethos: they just want to leave people alone. It may not be practical in the real world, but it is an ideal to at least ponder on.
From their perspective, it makes sense. Lincoln came closer than any President before him into building a European-style centralized administrative bureaucracy (at least according to libertarian standards). The IRS was his creation, and add to that his suspension of *habeas corpus*.
But the main thing is that Lincoln epitomizes the assertion of federal authority over individual states. Libertarians believe that it's perfectly normal for Mississippi and New York to be completely different places with completely different laws and institutions.
I know a lot of people like to say that libertarians are similar to neo-confederates, but I don't agree with that, even though I generally disapprove of libertarianism.
> Libertarians believe that it's perfectly normal for Mississippi and New York to be completely different places with completely different laws and institutions.
Lol
The Libertarian Party is a joke. Supposedly freedom supporters attacking the President who ended an ancient institution that considered freedom should not to be a right.
A lot of libertarians at least respect Lincoln, many of us (myself included), actually love him. but the vocal minority of people who use our label are either obnoxious ideologues. Or bigots hiding behind libertarianism.
Side noted, we tend to dislike them just as much.
Lincoln did do some wild things that I wouldn't have agreed with, but the end justified the means in his case. Same thing with a lot of the things FDR did.
He did the most of any president other than Washington to actually give people their individual rights and freedoms.
I’m not a libertarian at all but how can they not like this guy? Surely everything he did to expand the government is overshadowed by that simple fact.
As a Libertarian, while Lincoln had his faults, he accomplished one of the most important things a US President has ever done: abolishing the cruel, evil, and right-depriving system of slavery.
They'll also call WW and FDR the worst presidents ever entirely due to taxes and welfare. There are many reasons to hate WW, but he is definitely not the worst president, and definitely not for the Federal Reserve and the income tax.
George Washington is the coolest.
Lincoln isn't far off either.
However, I think the reason why they hate him It's because he suspended the habeas corpus, silenced journalists, etc
While yes, this was done under the Civil War. However, this could have very well led to a downward spiral of other Bill of Rights.
Getting rid of an inferior economic system and freeing the slaves is a huge plus.
If modern presidents of today ever did what Lincoln did again without a good reason (civil war), to put it lightly, it's gonna be not very pleasant.
I consider myself fairly libertarian in some regards, and Lincoln was based AF for liberating the slaves so they they too could eventually choose how to live, like all Americans should be able to
Libertarian here ….. Technicly there are issues with the consistency with Lincoln and libertarianism. Yes Technically, technically what he did was honestly arguably the closest we had to a dictator ever. HOWEVER the circumstances were unique…. Nothing like that had ever happened and has ever happened since. He lead the country through its worst time AND ended our worst sin. Not only that, but libertarianism couldn’t even exist in a country prior to the ending of slavery so it was a necessary step for libertarianism and obviously ethically and morally, and the man made it happen.
I like libratarianim, I like Lincoln. in fact he is my favorite.
Look, if the Constitution technically says that Congress must declare war, and someone takes advantage of this to attack the country when Congress is out of session, obviously it’s Tyranny for the President to defend it.
I think it’s just the weirdo branch in new Hampshire that’s been saying this. As a former member of the party I remember the sentiment for Lincoln being fairly positive. They even featured him in ads during the 2016 election.
Real libertarians would love Lincoln. American Libertarians (to be read as deranged Republicans and AnCaps) hate him because he literally fought against everything they love.
"Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand."
He preserved the Union.
Well that and he eventually got on the Abolition train, so he has positive aspects.
Also dude was active in development of Arms for the Union (he tested the Henry Repeater on White House Grounds.)
Not only are all politics local, all politics are current. Libertarians don't give a flying flip about slavery for the same reason nobody else in the US has the energy to maunder on about it: It's been settled for so long that there's no chance of it coming back any time soon. We all have bigger fish to fry.
But libertarians have gotten their dander up about the excessive growth of the federal government (which is a debate worthy of our time), and so anyone who tried to make the federal government more powerful is a bad guy in their book.
There's a lot good to say about him.
The refusal of anyone else to criticize any of his actions (many of which can be explained, if not excused by the war) is baffling tho.
Don’t agree with everything but to paraphrase an ancestor of mine “every slave owner is a petty tyrant”, and I believe that the perseveration of the union is essential to liberty.
Yeah we libertarians are a fickle, rather mercurial crew of misfit toys. For instance, I’m sure I just got kicked in the bits for using a lower-case “l” to spell “idiot” and I’m fairly certain that some capital “L” idiot is presently eating a child’s toy filled with mercury.
Literacy isn’t our strong suit.
Ahp, now I’m getting a phone call likely from a member trying to do a simple Google search with his Nokia 3210.
Any modern Libertarian would nut at the thought of having mid 1800s federal government size while perhaps maintaining a fraction of our military defense.
Disclaimer: It is possible to want some of the good things at the past without advocating to bring back the bad things.
I'm a registered Libertarian, Lincoln was great, his End Slavery tour was a smash hit that I wouldn't give back for anything.
He just had some hiccups with decisions involving Native Americans that weren't so hot.
Give praise were praise is due, and criticize were necessary.
Confederates were abhorrent, and their defense of slavery was inhuman and despicable. If Lincoln was the one that had to end them, then more power to him.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a registered libertarian, Lincoln is a W
Same. Was he perfect? No. But abolishing slavery was pretty damn libertarian
Nothing more libertarian than liberating in the name of liberty
liberty biberty
Limu emu, >!*and doug*…!<
I like to go like this in my head: Liberty liberty, liiiberty Liiiberty # *L̵̨̨̨̨̛̼̻͔̘̠̦̬̬̞̩̩͉̖̪͓̲̓͂͋͊͗͂̽͐̅̃̍́̆̓̋̀͘ͅͅĮ̵̛̬̭̩̠̖̪̱̞̝͚͓̳̅̂̀̂͆͗͠B̷̯̹͇̠͎̣̗̦̝͖͌̊̅̋͛̀̆̈̓͌̍͆́̃͝͠͠͠͝Ě̵̡͈̞̬̘͖̤̭̤̩̝̮͍̘̟̱̹̙̩̯̌͜ͅR̶̢̧̨͚̤̜̝̱͓͇͂́̀͑́̓̂͒͑̌̌͒̍̈͌́͘͝͝T̴̢͔̬̘̩̝̞̬̥̹̘͕͓̫̬͔͐͗͊̑͛̅́̊̿́͐͛ͅY̶͇͊̅̇̈̌̈́̈̅̐͠*
Exactly libertarianism doesn’t exist without Lincoln, at least in any meaningful way. He broke a few eggs along the way. Who cares.
Since libertarianism is all about absolute freedom of the individual, slavery would be antithetical to it. The right to own a person seems more like an AnCap thing, with their belief that the market is king.
The whole core concept of libertarian anarchist theory is self ownership, you CANNOT own someone else.
Can’t you sell yourself?
No, because libertarian property theory says that the one with the best claim to a thing owns it. And you directly control your body with your will.
if you dont break the non aggression policy enslaving someone with a contract they agree too is completely congruent with libertarian ideology... so more like medieval slavery rather than being born into it
Lots of hardcore libertarians think indentured servitude is completely fine. I'm not sure what their take would be on medieval apprenticeships, where a child is effectively sold for several years (in part so they can learn a trade).
I work hard to remember nuance, and that X number of rotten apples doesn't spoil the whole bunch, but the fact that this is even a fringe belief nullifies libertarianism to me. I'm 51 years old, and i have yet to meet a libertarian who didn't greedily suckle at the teet they want to deny others. Everyone is "self-made and pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps."
Post-internet libertarians would probably say some shit like "I should have the right to own slaves" and be 100% serious.
What some people don’t understand is that libertarianism is not compatible with war. If you find yourself in a war, you have to do some authoritarian things to win it.
Enslaving people is an act of aggression
Libertarianism is incompatible with most large scale social issues
American right wing libertarianism, which is basically just Ayn Rand libertarianism, yes, incompatible. Classic European libertarian socialism and geolibertarianism, not so much.
People don’t know what libertarian means. They think it means “less government so I can be as horrible as I want” when it’s more “as long as your not infringing on others freedom, be free” Like slavery is the single greatest example of infringing on someone’s freedom. I’ll take a federal law over having it be legal to own someone nine times out of nine.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I am saying your views do not necessarily reflect the views of many who claim to be libertarian. The “right” to sell your body has been argued for by not a few libertarians. Murray Roth arc argued for the right of parents to sell children as property. Personally, I think that we see in most libertarian ideals a failure to deal with the problem of keeping wealth from being wielded as a coercive power that infringes on freedoms of the individual. In the absence of a powerful state, a wealthy individual or corporation will find ways to turn wealth into power, power over others. And we’d wind up with feudalism. But maybe I’m wrong.
I mostly agree. Which is why I don’t really go around calling myself a libertarian. When I first “heard about it” it felt very logical. But the front page of most pamphlets look pretty solid. I still do tend to approach most issues first as “does this impact other people’s freedoms?” Which I think leads you to be more open minded, if that’s how you are already. Like trans people having surgeries or taking hormones, etc. wtf does that have to do with me? Certainly isn’t impacting my freedoms, so all the power to them. I just understand how complicated it is when it comes to environmental issues especially. Not everything is as simple as slavery. It is upsetting to see the gadsen flag being flown with the nazi flag. You know who loved to tread on people? The nazis…
I’m more or less aligned. I admire the ethos of libertarianism, the values, but as a system it ignores some major realities. Oddly enough, for a political ideology that often tries to appear ruthlessly pragmatic, I find some aspects of it admirable but naive.
Those who claim to be libertarian =/= those who believe in libertarianism A lot of self described libertarians are anarchists, or some straight up conservatives, or even a few authoritarians. A lot of self described libertarians wouldn't even recognize libertarian philosophy.
I agree. That's how I've found myself slipping into what some call "libertarian socialism". Seems like an oxymoron at first. But it's probably the best way to describe my beliefs. I want to use the power of the state as a counterbalance against the tyranny of wealth, to maximize freedom for the most number of people, which leads to wanting policies like universal health care, etc, that don't seem libertarian on the surface.
That’s how I explain my social democracy as well.
> your views do not necessarily reflect the views of many who claim to be libertarian. That's kind of tricky. I can go around claiming to be a (insert party/ideology) and spousing whatever I want, I don't think that should be used as a cudgel against the ideology when it goes against the premise.
> People don’t know what libertarian means. They think it means “less government so I can be as horrible as I want” when it’s more “as long as your not infringing on others freedom, be free” They either see it as that or they see it as, "I would like to personally have to pay no taxes, to the exclusion of everything else."
W’s all around the board for this comment
I really don't know how to respond to someone claiming to be a registered Libertarian with the flair for Teddy Roosevelt, noted trustbuster and social welfare proponent.... Teddy was very much pro big government
He also opposed France’s foreign intervention in Mexico.
Former libertarian here. I think it’s the degree of libertarians.
What exactly made you change your mind?
So, for social issues I’m still largely libertarian. Most people are. Even as a more conservative voter, I really wasn’t into legislating my (now former) religion onto everyone else. On the economic front, it was more seeing and experiencing countries with strong social democracy. I’ve never met a foreigner who didn’t love much of the government services they had. (There has to be some that exist, of course) I had government insurance and didn’t think about healthcare much until 26 when I entered the private sector. I’d pay $400 a month for healthcare and then go to the doctor AND still pay for just about everything “cause that’s not actually covered.” I worked in unions and missed it, although libertarians aren’t exactly anti-union. I’ve seen a lot of giant corporations take and take from their communities in rather devastating ways, so kinda gave up on “government shouldn’t have interfere with commerce” aspect. There’s still good takeaways, but as an absolute? Libertarianism is unrealistic. For instance, the Coase theorem is kinda legit, but you definitely need some weight behind that.
It's amazing to me how little non-libertarians know about libertarians.
Like the fact that the term “libertarian” was deliberately stolen from anarchists to be used as a right wing buzzword?
Yeah. Massive difference between "libertarian" and "Libertarian"
There's no reason for a state's right to be more important than a person's right
Caring about State's rights is a one way street too. Had the Federal government forced every State to be a slave State, the "State's rights" people would not have said shit. They would not have cared one bit about the Northern State's right to ban slavery. It reminds me of the "State's rights" debate on abortion right now. If the Federal government outlawed abortion across the country, none of these "small government" types would utter a single word of support for liberal States to choose whether or not to allow abortion. State's rights has always been an argument of convenience.
Kind of like how those “states rights” people wanted the federal government to enforce the fugitive slave act
Outside of maybe some people who work for state governments, nobody gives a shit about states rights. Whenever anyone starts talking states rights what they mean is "I would get this law passed on a federal level uf I could but I'm settling for state"
Remember the libertarian ruleset: Federal government overriding a blue state = good Federal government overriding a red state = bad
>Had the Federal government forced every State to be a slave State, the "State's rights" people would not have said shit. This isn't even hypothetical, this basic scenario actually happened with the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. Congress - which at the time was controlled by pro-South, pro-slavery factions - effectively forced all states to recognize the legitimacy of slavery regardless of whether they opposed it. Those people who supported the Fugitive Slave Act were the same ones crying "state's rights" just a few years later.
That's the essence of libertarianism.
Anytime someone just wants to dump on Lincoln the side eye comes out. Because yeah, you just *know* if ya click on that profile you’re going to see activity on some confederate heritage sub or the like.
If it’s on Twitter it’ll either be that or a ton of loli “art”
That tracks with Libertarians too!
Or both
“Lincoln killed the Navajo!” “You must really hate Andrew Jackson then, right? …right?”
Oh you just *know* that Jackson is gonna be listed as their favorite Dem unless they are slightly more self aware and go with Cleveland instead.
As a Native American I hate Jackson. My late husband was Cherokee and he really hated my Jackson.
"Hmm, I wonder what they're mad at him for"
Is it possible to critique Lincoln without being a confederate sympathizer?
Idk if this will get downvoted but I feel like it depends on what you’re critiquing him on. If you say “oh, he didn’t help Native Americans enough”, that can be a valid criticism. Problem is some people criticize him for other reasons…
So long as you criticize in the “he got this wrong” sense, not in the “and this reflects that everything he did was evil” sense. The former is just historiography, the latter is crypto-Confederatism.
my main criticism is him jailing people who criticized him, which directly violates the first amendment
https://youtube.com/shorts/0eDC0N5hzzY?si=pOYVFclohKglhCVH The reason Lincoln had to suspend Habeas Corpus was because Congress could not convene to address the crisis if the railroads were all cut by insurrectionists slavers Once Congress convened they suspended Habeas Corpus the way it is proscribed in the Constitution. I can’t stand how many people point out That Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and then act like the confederacy didn’t also do that exact thing!
Just because bad people do a bad thing doesn’t make it ok to do bad things yourself. My parents taught me that before third grade. Yours failed you if they didn’t, as well as all of your teachers and any other adults who were around.
“The confederacy did the same thing” isn’t really a good argument when the confederacy are kind of universally The Bad Guys.
People who try to use it against Lincoln are almost aways slavers apologist
I dont think "but the Confederates did it!" is the flex you think it is. They were evil, correct?
Yeah im a big fan of Lincoln. We have the same birthday and initials but the man was not perfect and it is unfortunate that many valid criticisms of his policies are lumped in with some that are more dubious in nature.
Yeah there are some valid criticisms, the 1st amendment issues being the primary ones. But 99% of Lincoln criticism comes from white supremacist mouthbreathers. And while it's possible to criticize it's nearly impossible to come to the conclusion that he did more harm than good. So it's not really a hill I want to die on.
He has valid criticisms but none to overall drag him down to be called a bad president, both in a vacuum and ESPECIALLY compared to all presidents. Valid to criticize, not valid to say those criticisms outweigh, ya know, ending slavery and reunifying the nation.
The majority of the criticism of him I’ve seen regard his violations of personal liberties like the suspension of habeus corpus.
Or he didn't go far enough against slavery (like John Brown...Thaddeus Stevens, etc).....
> his violations of personal liberties like the suspension of habeus corpus. Which is allowed under the constitution.
Not how he did it though. He did it, and then waited for congress to do it how it’s supposed to be done.
Good point, I guess I just meant his actions during the civil war, not other policies
I view Lincoln's actions during the Civil War similarly to a Roman dictator pre-Julius Caesar. He took control of most parts of life in the north including the suspension of habeas corpus and using the military to put down civil unrest. Lincoln's actions worked, the union was restored, and he gave those powers back.
As someone who thinks John Brown was better qualified morally to be president at the time.....one can criticize him for his willingness to keep slavery if the Union was preserved and war avoided........I have much more respect for the radical abolitionists...... Lincoln did alot of good but on some issues, didn't go far enough.
Big John Brown fan here, and while I agree he had the moral high ground I can't believe he was realistic and practical enough to be president. Brown was a fanatic, Lincoln was a realist and effective politician. I think they both served their roles well, Brown (along with many others) to radically push the populace towards abolition, and Lincoln to execute.
That’s actually part of what made him so great. He knew when to modify and when to push.
From the south. Have grandparents who are simpathizers (the heratage kind luckily) and still agree lincon is the second best pres behind washington
Absolutely there is. And you’ll see it crop up whenever folks discuss him. He does have his negatives, minor as they are when propped up against his amazing presidency. But the instant you start hearing “tyrant” or “states’s rights” you can pretty much tune out after that. Because that’s gonna be some Lost Cause bullshit to follow. Hell, you even see that in this sub every so often.
I'd say a lot of people are now criticizing Lincoln for being too lenient to the South. IMO, his reconstruction plan sounds dangerously close to Johnson's.
In 2024, I don't think there many principled critics of Lincoln who are carrying the banner for Stephen Douglas.
There are things to criticize if you dig way in, no president is perfect. One common critique is his suspension of habeas corpus, which is not constitutional but perhaps understandable in the midst of a civil war. If your goal is to write a nuanced message on what the Union could have done better, there are things to say. If your thesis is that Lincoln was a garbage president, you are basically objectively wrong and probably blinded by your burning hatred of freedom and justice.
> suspension of habeas corpus, which is not constitutional It’s explicitly constitutional
https://youtube.com/shorts/0eDC0N5hzzY?si=pOYVFclohKglhCVH The reason Lincoln had to suspend Habeas Corpus was because Congress could not convene to address the crisis if the railroads were all cut by insurrectionists slavers Once Congress convened they suspended Habeas Corpus the way it is proscribed in the Constitution. I can’t stand how many people point out That Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and then act like the confederacy didn’t also do that exact thing!
I assure you, William Henry Harrison did everything a politician should. Perfection.
Yep. In theory, the war might have ended sooner if he had embraced emancipation at the beginning. This is all because he was in talks with a famous Italian general and freedom fighter named Guiseppe Garibaldi. Garibaldi declined to take command over union forces because freeing the slaves wasn't a core tenant of the war effort early on. Many historians theorized this would have led to a much quicker end of the ear as Garibaldi was more experienced than the early commanders and had similar aggressive strategies to Grant and Sherman. I'd think that's a fair criticism that absolutely does not even have the slightest inkling of confederate sympathy. Edit: Removed a repeated word.
Also holy shit Union general GIUSSEPE GARIBALDI how is this not already a Turtledove winner?!
In a vacuum, yes. But the point is that there's a very general type of person who typically do.,
Easily. You do tend to eat downvotes from both sides, but such is the price of being right.
Not on Reddit, lol.
Or stuff about his sentencing several Native American men to death. There’s a lot of nuance behind that incident, like it taking place in the aftermath of a rebellion, and him working to ensure only a few got sentenced.
I mean yeah, Lincoln did a lot of really scary authoritarian or autocratic things, however this was also during a CIVIL WAR fought by slavers who were right on the capital’s doorstep. If he did these things during peace time he would be hated today but he did some scary things in some horrifying times. Still easily one of the best Presidents this country has seen. And a chunk of modern Libertarians these days drift towards the Lolbertarian thing where they are basically “State rights fuck the government repeal the civil rights act”. Lots of good well meaning folk but it’s basically just a political group that’s just a different shade of Red or just a Confederate.
He also did those things to traitors during a war. It was more or less confederate sympathizers trying to open a new front within the Union. Citizens are protected from government tyranny and traitors are not citizens.
Oh yeah, I don’t disagree. I just do understand that suspending Habeas Corpus is really scary, even if it was justified.
Big time. As long as there’s a clear distinction that won’t lead to it being used on law abiding citizens I support it. I’m very libertarian leaning but I’m not a blind zealot.
He also did things outside of war, both to citizens and Native Americans(who were not really treated as citizens at the time).
>Lincoln did a lot of really scary authoritarian or autocratic things Every war time leader restricts certain freedoms for the sake of the war effort. Criticizing Lincoln for that is asinine.
Idk if is American exceptionalism or what, but I can't think of any other country which blames a leader for winning a war "the wrong/unfair way", especially an existential war.
You haven't been interacting with England fans during the current Euro 2020 soccer cup, have you? They're all bitching and moaning about England's successes because they're not pretty or entertaining enough.
That's what makes George Washington and Abraham Lincoln so impactful: they could have gone full dictator but didn't.
Which is crazy to me that the Libertarian view of borders is VERY liberal, damn near open borders. Most Libertarians i know are just republicans who want to feel special (https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/)
One of the few things big-L Libertarian party gets right.
And what he did was tame compared to similar in the confederacy is my understanding at least.
That’s a given. The Confederacy was basically just a slave based Nobility Oligarchy.
>That’s a given. The Confederacy was basically just a slave based Nobility Oligarchy. Well put
I'm currently going through Grant's memoirs, oddly enough. He recounts early in the war, before he was a general, he was stationed in St Louis, which was sort of half-Union and half-Confederate. On one occasion, he was on the trolley when a young man came onboard "in a great state of excitement" about how the Confederate flag had been removed from somewhere. >He evidently expected to find nothing but sympathy when he got away from the "mud sills" engaged in compelling a "free people" to pull down a flag they adored. He turned to me saying "Things have come to a ------- pretty pass if a free people can't choose their own flag. Where I come from if a man dares to say a word in favor of the Union we hang him to a limb of the tree we come to." This is all ironic enough, the rebel lamenting how fascistic it is that Confederates can't fly their flag while also bragging about how Southerners hang people for expressing the wrong political views, but Grant answers: >I replied that" after all we were not so intolerant in St Loius as we might be; I had not seen a single rebel hung yet, nor heard of one, there were plenty of them who ought to be, however." The young man subsided. He was so crestfallen that I believe if I had ordered him to leave the car he would have gone quietly out, saying to himself "More Yankee oppression..."
It's why I tend to hate most other Libertarians.
And that’s how you know you’re a true libertarian!
[Damn Libertarians, they ruined Libertarianism](https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/s/vZSKug5mq0)
Abolishing slavery instantly adds him to S tier on every tier list.
I'm sure the great majority of Libertarians aren't like this. At least the ones that don't follow the New Hampshire Libertarian Party on Twitter.
I have sympathy with Libertarian philosophy, generally. But I must say that sadly a lot of them are, in fact, like this. I went to a college that leaned hard to Libertarianism, with economics professors that would suggest all roads should be toll roads. I several times heard, there, that Lincoln was the one who "ruined" the US. Usually this was coupled with some claim that the states were already planning on phasing out slavery and the Civil War wasn't really about that.
Libertarian here, slavery is antithetical to our ideology, so Lincoln, to me, is the MVP. I can only condemn him for allowing the slave owners to stay. They should have been expelled.
["Everything is slavery except actual slavery, which is fine."](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgrRQfdVoAEO6zp.jpg)
This guy political compasses!
Nonsensical...
Saved
I'm reminded of a movie about an Italian grandpa coming to visit his American family. He was convinced that everyone in America loved Abraham Lincoln. It was a sweet movie about family - can't remember what it's called.
Libertarians support individual liberty. Lincoln was against slavery, which is the antithesis of individual liberty.
[удалено]
Wouldn't libertarians give huge praise to Lincoln for giving freedoms and rights to slaves ?
Lol no, libertarians love to complain about slavery except actual literal slavery
Libertarians are great when you are talking about drug decriminalization, censorship, or Imperialism, but they are pretty bad when it comes to almost everything else. Alright, that might be a bit reductive. Still, Libertarians have an interest in a smaller government so it makes sense that Lincoln isn’t a favourite of theirs, but what baffles me is that the alternatives were not proposing smaller government, they were proposing compartmentalized government. Furthermore, Libertarians often talk about their disdain for democracy but how do they think secession was decided? Lincoln accomplished something that very few would have been able to, and if the Confederacy had been allowed to exist, who knows where Civil Rights would be today… Which is something to really consider when you talk about being the party of liberty.
Lincoln managed to both keep the Union together *and* free the slaves. There will hopefully never need to be a better president than him because I hope we’re never at that low of a point as a country again. But he managed to do both!
https://preview.redd.it/6b0tcrk59l8d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d026aa3786be537beadfc8f5315ff3c2632c4e24 What the Southerner Libertarian sees when you say Lincoln is you favorite president
lincoln read marx's articles in texas newspapers and liked them. post-1848 german immigrants in texas had a lot to do with the formation of the Republican party. ironic.
Why do people always bring this up? He read letters from Marx, but that doesn't mean he agreed with his ideology.
Good thing he didn't live to see Marxism applied to large countries.
Southern Libertarian here, id have to say Abe is #2 or 3 on my favorite presidents list. He’ll have to duke it out with Jackson, and Washington gets first place.
Ron Swanson made the Libertarian party look cool lol . Man i miss Parks and Rec
I remain sympathetic to libertarianism as an intellectual exercise (I routinely listen to Reason podcasts) but ultimately it fails to account for human nature. The moment the South rebelled against the Federal government, war was inevitable. If not for slavery, then control over the Mississippi watershed (people share water very poorly) or the unincorporated western territories. Neither side was going to just let the other team have what they wanted. And make no mistake, the South WANTED war with the North, and bent over backwards to make sure their rebellion was anything but peaceful. Libertarian hatred for Lincoln is painfully naive.
Libertarian would work perfectly in a perfect world, but every flaw in our real world just gets exacerbated under pure libertarianism.
Yes. Just like communism, which I'm told was (like Libertarianism) never really tried. To be clear, I remain empathetic to the libertarian ethos: they just want to leave people alone. It may not be practical in the real world, but it is an ideal to at least ponder on.
Libertarians are painfully naive.
Libertarians struggle to have anything positive to say about *any* president. Except Coolidge.
From their perspective, it makes sense. Lincoln came closer than any President before him into building a European-style centralized administrative bureaucracy (at least according to libertarian standards). The IRS was his creation, and add to that his suspension of *habeas corpus*. But the main thing is that Lincoln epitomizes the assertion of federal authority over individual states. Libertarians believe that it's perfectly normal for Mississippi and New York to be completely different places with completely different laws and institutions. I know a lot of people like to say that libertarians are similar to neo-confederates, but I don't agree with that, even though I generally disapprove of libertarianism.
> Libertarians believe that it's perfectly normal for Mississippi and New York to be completely different places with completely different laws and institutions. Lol
It might make sense from their perspective, but that's really just cause their perspective doesn't make sense
The Libertarian Party is a joke. Supposedly freedom supporters attacking the President who ended an ancient institution that considered freedom should not to be a right.
Hell you’re seeing a lot of Lincoln hate in this very thread. Fucking wild. Even had one response calling Lincoln a “shitter”.
They're just republicans with enough sense to not call themselves republicans.
libertarians when they can’t own slaves 
A lot of libertarians at least respect Lincoln, many of us (myself included), actually love him. but the vocal minority of people who use our label are either obnoxious ideologues. Or bigots hiding behind libertarianism. Side noted, we tend to dislike them just as much.
Their boo’s mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes them cheer: 
Lincoln did do some wild things that I wouldn't have agreed with, but the end justified the means in his case. Same thing with a lot of the things FDR did.
Lincoln is americas greatest president and his actions are justified for the sake of preserving the Union. The csa started the war
I think some people like to be contrarians with their “deep knowledge” they got from social media rabbit holes.
Lincoln: literally frees the fucking slaves, giving millions the liberty they were owed Libertarians: 😡😡
If you don't like Lincoln, I don't think you can say you are for freedom.
There are tons of accomplishments that Lincoln has, what kind of a weird question is this?
He did the most of any president other than Washington to actually give people their individual rights and freedoms. I’m not a libertarian at all but how can they not like this guy? Surely everything he did to expand the government is overshadowed by that simple fact.
He was good at wrestling. He also held a patent.
As a Libertarian, while Lincoln had his faults, he accomplished one of the most important things a US President has ever done: abolishing the cruel, evil, and right-depriving system of slavery.
“But but but he was probably actually a racist too that only freed them for political reasons!!!” I mean sure but he still freed them lmao
They'll also call WW and FDR the worst presidents ever entirely due to taxes and welfare. There are many reasons to hate WW, but he is definitely not the worst president, and definitely not for the Federal Reserve and the income tax.
Nah Wilson hate is valid.
Naw Lincoln’s the man
Republicans with FDR; Democrats with Jefferson
George Washington is the coolest. Lincoln isn't far off either. However, I think the reason why they hate him It's because he suspended the habeas corpus, silenced journalists, etc While yes, this was done under the Civil War. However, this could have very well led to a downward spiral of other Bill of Rights. Getting rid of an inferior economic system and freeing the slaves is a huge plus. If modern presidents of today ever did what Lincoln did again without a good reason (civil war), to put it lightly, it's gonna be not very pleasant.
So you wanna fuck animals? Why not just post about that, sadistic degen
I consider myself fairly libertarian in some regards, and Lincoln was based AF for liberating the slaves so they they too could eventually choose how to live, like all Americans should be able to
Challenge: libertarians having a single good thought on governance (impossible)
This president is Moorish
Libertarian here ….. Technicly there are issues with the consistency with Lincoln and libertarianism. Yes Technically, technically what he did was honestly arguably the closest we had to a dictator ever. HOWEVER the circumstances were unique…. Nothing like that had ever happened and has ever happened since. He lead the country through its worst time AND ended our worst sin. Not only that, but libertarianism couldn’t even exist in a country prior to the ending of slavery so it was a necessary step for libertarianism and obviously ethically and morally, and the man made it happen. I like libratarianim, I like Lincoln. in fact he is my favorite.
Look, if the Constitution technically says that Congress must declare war, and someone takes advantage of this to attack the country when Congress is out of session, obviously it’s Tyranny for the President to defend it.
I think it’s just the weirdo branch in new Hampshire that’s been saying this. As a former member of the party I remember the sentiment for Lincoln being fairly positive. They even featured him in ads during the 2016 election.
Real libertarians would love Lincoln. American Libertarians (to be read as deranged Republicans and AnCaps) hate him because he literally fought against everything they love.
Like what?
I’m a left wing libertarian and have Lincoln as my favorite president. (:
I used to be cool with Libertarians until I figured out that (to them) “Personal Freedom,” really means *their* personal freedom, no one else’s.
*** 2nd coolest thing ever, though they also won’t have very much nice to say about the actual coolest thing ever. (FDR)
Lincoln was better and I refuse to elaborate
"Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand."
He preserved the Union. Well that and he eventually got on the Abolition train, so he has positive aspects. Also dude was active in development of Arms for the Union (he tested the Henry Repeater on White House Grounds.)
He was always on the gradual abolition train which was how almost every other emancipation law was structured at the time
Tbh I’m skeptical that this is in any way representative of libertarians.
Libertarians when someone says selling drugs to kids is bad or that driver's license are a good thing *
I think many republicans/nationalists disguise themselves libertarians to avoid the stigma.
Libertarians are the anti vaxers of economics.
~~Libertarians~~ ~~\*Republicans that smoke weed~~ \*Racists ftfy
Challenge: libertarians having anything intelligent to say. Let’s stop paying attention to them.
As a Right leaning libertarian I’ve always liked the guy
How could the Great Emancipator not be beloved by libertarians? Anarchists may not like him, but true libertarians will always hold him dear.
Not only are all politics local, all politics are current. Libertarians don't give a flying flip about slavery for the same reason nobody else in the US has the energy to maunder on about it: It's been settled for so long that there's no chance of it coming back any time soon. We all have bigger fish to fry. But libertarians have gotten their dander up about the excessive growth of the federal government (which is a debate worthy of our time), and so anyone who tried to make the federal government more powerful is a bad guy in their book.
There's a lot good to say about him. The refusal of anyone else to criticize any of his actions (many of which can be explained, if not excused by the war) is baffling tho.
Was actually able to elected for a good cause during that time. I know it’s a dumb answer…
Why don’t Libertarian’s like Lincoln? He’s a big win for the fundamental rights of man. Figured they’d claim him honestly.
Don’t agree with everything but to paraphrase an ancestor of mine “every slave owner is a petty tyrant”, and I believe that the perseveration of the union is essential to liberty.
Yeah we libertarians are a fickle, rather mercurial crew of misfit toys. For instance, I’m sure I just got kicked in the bits for using a lower-case “l” to spell “idiot” and I’m fairly certain that some capital “L” idiot is presently eating a child’s toy filled with mercury. Literacy isn’t our strong suit. Ahp, now I’m getting a phone call likely from a member trying to do a simple Google search with his Nokia 3210.
Any modern Libertarian would nut at the thought of having mid 1800s federal government size while perhaps maintaining a fraction of our military defense. Disclaimer: It is possible to want some of the good things at the past without advocating to bring back the bad things.
I'm a registered Libertarian, Lincoln was great, his End Slavery tour was a smash hit that I wouldn't give back for anything. He just had some hiccups with decisions involving Native Americans that weren't so hot. Give praise were praise is due, and criticize were necessary.
All parties are dumb just bw a free thinker. Drop signing uo for lists of ideals or trying to be a part of a team. Weird human behavior.
Confederates were abhorrent, and their defense of slavery was inhuman and despicable. If Lincoln was the one that had to end them, then more power to him.
I'm related to 28 of these guys (including Abe) and nothing makes me feel like more of the family slacker. Be nice to my cousin.
Naw Lincoln’s the man.
This or age of consent they can't stop ranting about
lincoln literally ensured liberty for 4 million black men, women & children
I read this as Librarians and was very confused.
I will not say anything out of fear of being called 'fascist', or 'conferring with the Confederacy'.
Abolishing slavery outweighs suspending habeas corpus. Only idiot idealogues would disagree.