Three Reasons Not to Like Abraham Lincoln

[Private Pickle]

For my own part, the most persuasive and important critique of the north (and by extension Lincoln) came from Lysander Spooner, who, ironically enough, was a radical abolitionist from the north. Before I read his take on the "civil war", I was firmly in the pro-Lincoln camp. So if you want a powerful response to the northern rationales for war, I would highly recommend reading No Treason. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Spooner's No Treason is the single most important piece of political literature I've ever read.

I will definitely read it and get back to you.

I would suggest a book on Lincoln that has to do with his depression and how it was viewed then vs. how we view depression now and how it affected his political decision making.

'Lincoln's Melancholy' - Joshua Wolf Shenk

[Private Pickle]

For my own part, the most persuasive and important critique of the north (and by extension Lincoln) came from Lysander Spooner, who, ironically enough, was a radical abolitionist from the north. Before I read his take on the "civil war", I was firmly in the pro-Lincoln camp. So if you want a powerful response to the northern rationales for war, I would highly recommend reading No Treason. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Spooner's No Treason is the single most important piece of political literature I've ever read.

By the way I've thoroughly enjoyed our discussion despite our differences and hope we will continue to have these types of interactions.

P.S. I think we always have great conversations...that last bit was for the masses...

[Mister D]

By the way I've thoroughly enjoyed our discussion despite our differences and hope we will continue to have these types of interactions.

P.S. I think we always have great conversations...that last bit was for the masses...

Agreed. You and Ethereal are always game for a real discussion.

[Ethereal]

By the way I've thoroughly enjoyed our discussion despite our differences and hope we will continue to have these types of interactions.

P.S. I think we always have great conversations...that last bit was for the masses...

Likewise!

[Newpublius]

Right about everything but you left out the reasoning behind:

"4. Was guaranteeing slavery sufficient to mollify Confederate concerns? No, even with the guarantee of slavery, the confederate states still wanted to leave the Union"

They wanted to leave the Union because of new territories the North was forbidding slavery in like in Kansas. They basically said any new State would be slavery free. The South would not concede that and as such all but forced the North to maintain the "United" in United States.

This however; does not speak to @Ethereal's point to the "Unionization" of the U.S. which he believes was created by Lincoln. Although I could be wrong given I don't speak for Ethereal.

Prior to the war Bleeding Kansas as it was called was a low boil conflict that wound up spinning John Brown out to Harper's Ferry. The territories being denied to the southerners ticked them off, no doubt and the issue of slavery with respect to the territories is that the territories would come in as free states, outnumber the slave states, and of course abolish slavery. This is clearly a motive in the Declaration of the Causes of Secession, however with respeft to being denied the use of the teritories, seceding doesn't do anything other than to forfeit the territories to the remaining Union.

[Private Pickle]

Prior to the war Bleeding Kansas as it was called was a low boil conflict that wound up spinning John Brown out to Harper's Ferry. The territories being denied to the southerners ticked them off, no doubt and the issue of slavery with respect to the territories is that the territories would come in as free states, outnumber the slave states, and of course abolish slavery. This is clearly a motive in the Declaration of the Causes of Secession, however with respeft to being denied the use of the teritories, seceding doesn't do anything other than to forfeit the territories to the remaining Union.

We agree! But seceding does do something if you win and reap the territories instead of forfeiting them.

[resister]

I would tend to agree with that. But I still contend that the south was less bad than the north and had a stronger ethical case for their secession than Lincoln did for his forceful attempts to bring them back into the fold.

California must be stopped!

[donttread]

The nobility and righteousness of Lincoln's war is a central element of the US government's authoritarian mythology. But a critical examination of his legacy reveals something far more dastardly and destructive. Whether it was his persecution of his political opposition or his merciless destruction of the south, Lincoln re-imagined and manufactured the "union" out of thin air and subsequently drenched it in blood. That is the authoritarian paradigm that Americans have been living under ever since. And that is why Lincoln's legacy is easily the most odious to liberty and to federalism in our country's history.

I do believe that individual rights , when abused by states , can be enforced by the feds. The BOR's protects you from intrusions by both federal and state oppression. Clearly slavery is oppressive.
Yes, I'm sure the war was cultural as well as about slavery, but few wars, if any are fought solely for their stated purpose . In fact modern wars are fought for entirely different reasons.
Neither Lincoln , Jefferson, Madison or Washington were saints because saints don't exist especially among power people.
Still the long term results of what they all did for America are unmatched by any modern figure.