No he didn’t. As late as August 1964 he has been found to be pursuing colonization.
I’ll just add that the court historians aka state apologists aka demagogue idolaters were factually incorrect in response to one of Judge “not an historian” Napolitano’s comments. Escaped slaves were indeed hunted, captured, and shamefully returned to their state supported “owners” during the Civil War. You would think that if you were a supposed Lincoln expert, you would know that or at least act less cavalierly in your shallow intellectual impotence.
I assume you meant 1864. If so, your claim is misleading. Cite: Michael Vorenberg, Associate Professor of History at Brown University http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0014.204/--abraham-lincoln-and-the-politics-of-black-colonization?rgn=main;view=fulltext
Cite.
I meant to add someone who would be considered by academics to be more reliable than Eric Foner.
That certainly wasn’t true of slaves who escaped from the Confederacy, though it might have been true of the border states though even then I’m not sure how enforced it was.
You’re obviously trying to make the case that slavery only existed because of the evil state. Because in Libertopia, there’d be no slavery.
Which is nonsense, of course. The state didn’t require people to own slaves and it didn’t require people to hunt for fugitive slaves. These were things people chose to do as private citizens without any direction from the state. All the state did was simply stand back and allow people to do these things.
Which is what Libertarians say the state should be doing - just staying out of people’s business even if that business involves owning slaves.
Now of course Libertarians will say “No, that’s not what we meant. We’re opposed to slavery.” Well, of course you are. Everyone is opposed to slavery now. Libertarianism is nothing special on that. The difference is most systems can actually do something about it. They not only have ideals, they put those ideals into effect. The only way Libertarians can put an ideal like opposing slavery into effect is by putting aside their Libertarian principles and using some other more effective principles.
You’re not sure because you are a hardened hagiographic hack hound who pretends he has some kind of establishment credentials. You’re a clown, son. The state grows and the elite get rich off off the people while you run around peddling “proper” propaganda and getting shit on by the people you fellate.
Are you too dimwitted to recognize the role of court historians? They have bought into the ideology of state dominated life. If they rock the boat they don’t get paid. So they provide the state with intellectual credibility to people who are concerned with being part of the in-crowd like yourself. But you aren’t in the in-crowd. You spend your time on a message board, not affecting policy, not rubbing shoulders with the elite, not doing anything of any consequence in the world.
On the other hand, you have a blue-collar motherfucker like me arming myself with information against people trying to plunder the population, and their suckered shills such as yourself. I do this shit on my lunch break. I eat your lunch while I’m taking a shit.
The bolding above is by me for your benefit.
Absurd. Slave and master are political terms recognized by the state as legal categories.
Do you know you’re full of shit or are you legitimately this fucking stupid. Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, plain and simple. Slavery would be the the highest violation of this principle besides murder.
Lysander Spooner was one of the most vocal opponents of slavery in the United States.
Actually using force against slave owners would be completely consistent with the only libertarian principle of non-aggression except in cases self-defense. You are either a bad liar or you’re talking out of your asshole and do not understand libertarianism. maybe both.
I have to say I’m laughing at the use of the term “court historian”.
Anyway Will, I’m sorry your so butthurt over the way the South got spanked during the Civil War. They lost, get over it.
Beyond that, I’m laughing at the idea of someone who thinks you could have some sort of libertopia actually work or that libertarians are somehow more “blue collar” than the rest of us.
Dude, it’s a kooky fringe political group that most people laugh at.
There’s nothing quite like being called a clown by someone who uses “War of Northern Aggression” unironically, is there?
Typical of Lincoln scribes, he takes excessive license with his interpretations of Lincoln’s actions without backing it up. He likes a good yarn, basically. EIther way he doesn’t address these items:
You pretend to be some kind of scholar. You’re a clown. You post with your nose in the air, but you wear shabby clothing. A clown defined.
You vicariously live through victories in violent wars. Probably has something to do with your culture. Power obsessed, ultra-masculine barbarism.
I do? When did I ever say anything like that?
I merely asked if you had a cite more reliable than Eric Foner. The best you could do was to say that in order to keep the border states from bolting Lincoln did, at times, enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. No shit, he always made it clear his goal was preservation of the union and ultimately that led to the freeing of all the slaves in both the North and the South.
Actually I wear nice clothing and I certainly don’t post with my nose in the air, though I’ll confess to laughing at times when responding to you.
Huh? What are you talking about. I’m generally not even very interested in wars.
Huh? Is that supposed to be some racist shot at me for being an Iranian? If so, perhaps you could provide some sort of explanation because I don’t get it.
Beyond that, if you have the time and would like to read about a culture obsessed with martial tradition, tradition and ancient concepts of honor and shame, and far more prone to violence then you should read a fascinating book called Honor and Violence in the Old South by Bertram Wyatt Brown.
He also wrote, Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South, which I haven’t read by I’ve heard is fantastic.
I obviously understand libertarianism better than you. I understand it well enough to see that, as you just noted, it only starts working when it stops being libertarian.
As opposed to an apologist for one of the most evil and morally bankrupt geopolitical entities in world history?
I hadn’t thought of it that way.
I was tempted to point out that historically clowns or court jesters were the people allowed and often encouraged to mock the King so his comment could be seen as a compliment but I doubted he’d appreciate the comparison.
Indeed. I thought I’d just drop this here:
I use “Failed War to Preserve Slavery” with minimal irony, does that count for anything?