The Libertarian vendetta against Lincoln embodies pretty much every reason I find the Libertarian community’s worldview deeply disturbing, all in one neat little package. Let’s see, we’ve got: a sympathy with the neo-Confederates, (as well as creationists, and other radical right groups which will remain unspecified); a blindness to historical context and allergy to perspective; an obsession with ideological purity and antipathy towards compromise; a singleminded animosity towards the income tax; and a strange preference for the small governments of states over federal protection of individuals.

I’ll leave aside the whole neo-Confederate issue that people like Ron Paul seem to have, since many of the Libertarians I’ve met with Lincoln issues do seem to be acting in good faith.

First some historical context:
Lincoln, like most anti-slavery northerners, has watched as one northern state after another abolished slavery (culminating in New Jersey), as Virginia came close to doing so (Virginia narrowly failed to enact gradual emancipation in the wake of the Turner revolt. According to at least one paper I’ve read, it would have passed, except that the pro-slavery districts were allowed to count their non-voting slaves for population). They came to the conclusion that if the expansion of slavery was checked, slavery would gradually die out. Southrons also believed this, which is why they kept pushing for “compromises” which invariably expanded slavery, and opposed popular sovereignty. The thinking behind the original 13th Amendment was that it by ensuring that a Northern majority in the House and Senate could not abolish slavery, more moderate “necessary evil” southerners would stop pushing to expand slavery. It’s also why abolitionists and the radical “positive good” southerners jointly killed the amendment.

It’s clear from his letters that Lincoln was opposed to slavery. It’s also clear that he was a shrewd politician, who recognized the need to compromise with slavery. We think that’s horrific, but outside of New England abolition was generally considered well beyond the pale. As Congressman, Lincoln came from a conservative district in downstate Illinois. As president Lincoln would not have been elected on a platform of abolition. The Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery northerners from both the Democrats and the Whigs with a focus on stopping the expansion of slavery, again, with the hope that it would gradually die out. And honestly, I don’t think that abolition was his goal when he started the Civil War. He did try to get the border states to abolish slavery, which every one from Missouri to Delaware refused). Regardless of whether he intended to abolish slavery at the outset of the Civil War the fact of the matter is that Lincoln was a pragmatist, who found it pragmatic to did abolish slavery.

Libertarians always harp about how libertarianism makes the most sense, practically and morally, yet detest anybody who makes concessions to reality. Lincoln made concessions with reality, both political and practical, and put an end to the greatest stain on our nation’s history. The next time a Libertarian does more to advance individual freedom than write a conspiracy theory about why the 16th Amendment is Unconstitutional, let me know. I’d love to hear about it.

Let’s talk about the Confederacy. Leave aside slavery (and whether slavery for southern blacks is worse than the income tax for everybody), and just focus on free white men. Lincoln violated the 1st Amendment rights of the Copperheads? I concede that, and deny that it was worse than the Sedition Act. The southerners, however, were censoring abolitionist literature even before the civil war. The southern states instated a draft well before the north did, and much more thoroughly. As for habeas corpus, the Confederates violated that too. On the other hand, the Constitution explicitly allows the president to suspend it during times of domestic insurrection or civil unrest. But the Civil War was neither. And let’s not forget that Lincoln’s original plan was to wait out secession, and let cooler heads prevail in the south. The Civil War was horrifically violent, but the South started it. (No joke. Google “Ft. Sumter”)

Oh, but Lincoln did violate the rights of states governments in order to defend the rights of the meagre seventh of the national population born into slavery, and the few white unionists who opposed secession. (And what’s worse, he laid the framework for the 14th Amendment, requiring *states* to respect the Bill of Rights. Quelle horreur!) Nevermind then, I take it all back. Lincoln *was* the worst president ever.

Unfortunately, the principles of the free market have been sorely neglected for much of this country’s history and we have folks like Ha-joon Chang-who I actually found likeable-having met him in person, but who unwittingly created greater confusion by his misunderstanding of U.S. economic history. I once asked him a question about certain statistical data regarding the Great Depression which he quoted in his book and he sidestepped it completely. Would love to see him in a panel discussion with economist Douglas Irwin.