It's a thread I felt like starting after I've returned from CPAC. Needless to say, there were a lot of Paul people there, so I guess they didn't vote in the straw poll. So I had plenty of time to talk with them and their viewpoints. I noticed that quite a few with no help from my part really, really do not like Lincoln, which I guess is a trait I've noticed before. All who mentioned him called him a tyrant, and one said that he should have let the South go free and make their own state. So I got curious. What do our resident libertarians necessarily think about the 16th president, and why?
He did what he had to do. There is a reason most historians regard him as the greatest president of all time. He did everything he could to avoid war and didn't overstep his power until he had no other option. Reconstruction would have been a much simpler process under him also, but because he got assassinated that was not the case. If I was to call a widely considered great president a "tyrant" I'd reserve that for FDR. He did great things, but I think he expanded the power of the executive way too much.
I consider myself a libertarian and I think Lincoln was a good President. Some times the greater good requires some loss of freedom. However. Lincoln certainly trampled a lot of civil liberties so I could see why some people do not see him as a great president. For example, suspending the writ of habeas corpus was probably going too far. Of course, his transgressions may be justified by the war and may even be tame by modern day civil liberty violations.
so kijoriou - i assume you voted for romney at the CPAC convention. if so, may i ask why you support him? what is it you like about romney? i asked you in the GOP thread, but i guess you missed my post. and are you saying that w/out provocation, paul supporters would come up to you and start talking about how much they disliked lincoln? that seems weird. i know several paul supporters and i have never discussed lincoln w/ any of them. as for your question, i like lincoln. great president.
I'm just spitballing because I don't know anyone that vocally hates Lincoln, but I would guess attacking Lincoln on libertarian grounds is just another species (or facet?) of Southern slavery apologetics. It sounds a lot like the tortured arguments that secession was about States Rights and not slavery. So maybe Southerners could tell Lincoln was going to be a tyrant and seceded, and then Lincoln proved them right. I mean one could call Lincoln a tyrant on principled ideological grounds. But, why would anyone bother if they didn't have an axe to grind about the War Between the States? A libertarian who has gotten over the Civil War wouldn't care deeply enough to bother calling him a tyrant. Most people have moved on.
i think it is tame, but that is more a function of available technology in 2012 vs. 1860. would lincoln have the TSA out there naked body scanning and groping innocent americans? would he justify it by saying he is preventing vampires? lincolns suspension of habeas corpus is not excusable, but the civil war was such an unprecedented event - not only a war, but the only war fought entirely on american soil. i dont think it takes away from him going down as a great president. and if we want to go there w/ lincoln we should also talk about adams and the alien and sedition acts.
Really you think what happened up the Lincoln Admin. is tame compared to the TSA? Consider that the US Army leveled American cities and killed civilians indiscriminately and compare that to TSA scanners. When Homeland security levels Atlanta and bombs NYC occupiers then you have a valid comparison. Also if we are talking about unprecedented I hate to say that 9/11 changed everything but 3,000 plus people killed on US soil using commercial airliners was an unprecedented event. As far as if Lincoln had the technology we do now I have absolutely no doubt he would have TSA scanners. Given his track record and the threats the country faced I would guess he would've used them far far more widely than they are now.
Lincoln was wrong to use the Civil War as an excuse to suspend habeas corpus and our leaders since 9/11 are wrong to have used 9/11 as an excuse for taking additional civil liberties. This reduction in civil liberties have not made us any safer.
I tend to agree but I am talking about comparing what is happening now to what happened under Lincoln. Neither are good but civil rights violations under Lincoln are far beyond anything that has happened the last ten years.
I think you are correct that Lincoln would have done as much or more than our current leaders if he had the current technology at the time, but he did not have the ability to intercept private conversations (as one example) that currently exists. Therefore, I still believe there has been more impingement of our civil liberties under recent leaders than under Lincoln.
I am not following you. YOu say that Lincoln probably would've done the same things as our current leaders if he had the technology but since he couldn't things are worse now. What Lincoln did do was not just suspend Habeas Corpus and kill other Americans indiscriminately. Apparently you and Jo Mama consider TSA naked scanners and electronic eavesdropping worse. That is subjective but I think most people would consider suspending habeas corpus, sacking Atlanta and shelling NYC during the Draft Riots worse.
There was a civil war at the time. Lincoln used the Civil War (Americans attacking Americans) as an excuse to take away rights of Americans. He was wrong, but I can understand the position. Our leaders since 9/11 have used an attack by outsiders as an excuse to take away the freedoms of Americans. I have a lot more trouble understanding that reasoning. I am not that bothered by the TSA scanners. I do not think they are that effective, but if you want to fly a plane, that is part of the price you pay. However, warrantless searches, extended detentions without trials, electronic eavesdropping, etc. are not the principles on which this country was founded.
