Lincoln was the most 'liberal' president of all time; his supporters are NOT conservatives!

JLConservative concedes the point that Abraham Lincoln was a liberal. In fact, he says Lincoln was as much of a liberal as Bill Clinton was a liar. Wow, that's a powerful indictment against the "Great Liberator." JLConservative then cites a statement I made against him, accusing him of being "a perfect example of what government indoctrination centres (public schools) do to the mind." But I didn't insult him out of nowhere. You see, it was he who first accused ME of obtaining my Austro-Jeffersonian historical/economic perspective from a public school -- which is the height of absurdity. Here is what JLConservative said: "I wonder where you got all this information because the Lincoln I have been studying for 12 years has had absolutely nothing to do with what your suggesting wow....is this what government school does to you?" Now what he was referring to there is the following laundry list I posted elsewhere: ---- Like Hitler, Lincoln was a hardcore white supremacist. He opposed the expansion of slavery because he wanted to keep the North exclusively for white people. After the Civil War, he intended to deport all blacks to Africa and Haiti. Like Hitler, Lincoln waged war on civilians. He micromanaged the Civil War and ordered destruction of private property and killing of innocent civilians; including women and children. Like Hitler, Lincoln abhorred free speech. He destroyed the printing presses of anti-government newspapers and had editors jailed. He jailed any opponents of his without trial. It was not only a crime to criticize Lincoln, but also to NOT defend him in the face of criticism. Like Hitler, Lincoln was an imperialist. He invaded the sovereign South with no declaration of war, and had his eyes of Mexico, too. After Lincoln's death, his party organized mass genocide of the Plains Indians. ---- All of which is absolutely true. From JL's Round 1: "yes [Lincoln] was an extreme liberal, he supported strong government and little individual rights, he did have his own secret police, he did many things that in this day would be considered communistic ideas however to call him a Hitler is almost a disgrace." Almost a disgrace? Let's see, Hitler was for a strong government and little (no) individual rights, Hitler had his own secret police, and he was a National Socialist (like Lincoln). How is it "almost disgraceful" to point out the similarities? In the comments of another debate, JL said that Abraham Lincoln was the best president ever. Later, he changes his mind to Reagan. Which is it? How can a conservative, who admits that Lincoln was a horrendous liberal, think that Lincoln (as liberal as Clinton was a liar) was the best president ever? That makes no sense! Moving on, JL says the southern states threatened to secede because Lincoln was "against slavery." This is false. Lincoln was against the EXPANSION of slavery, but he was not against slavery. He made it very clear when he said: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Southern leaders falsely labeled Lincoln an "abolitionist" as a mere slur. He was not an abolitionist, and in fact, was an ardent white supremacist. Below is a disgusting quote from Lincoln on the subject of race (posted elsewhere, too): "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." The truth is that some Deep South states seceded when Lincoln was elected president, but only a few. The other states you mention only seceded once Lincoln illegally invaded their sister states. The right to secession was one recognized not only by Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, but also Hamilton and the Federalists! Secession is clearly protected by the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution, as it is nowhere expressly prohibited, and all powers not prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. Even most northerners at the time acknowledged this! The truth, of course, is that the South seceded because Lincoln was a National Socialist and anticapitalist. The Republican platform -- like the Whig and Federalist platforms before it -- was expressly fascist. The South already paid the lion's share of taxes (despite having fewer people) through protectionist import tariffs. The proceeds of these tariffs were then used to subsidize "internal improvements" (corporate welfare) in the North. Lincoln, upon his inauguration, sounded his intention to collect these tariffs by military force. The South was an exporting region, and it depended on imports. Protectionist tariffs hurt the South three ways: 1) It made the cost of imported goods more expensive, 2) It allowed northern industrialists to charge higher prices, since they were protected from foreign competition, and 3) other nations retaliated with countervailing duties and reciprocal tariffs, thus hurting the South's ability to export. THIS is why the South seceded, and any student of history would know this. As you admit, the Emancipation Proclamation freed few (actually, ZERO) slaves. Even slaves in areas of the South that were occupied by the North were not freed by it. The fact is, the Proclamation served two purposes: 1) To make the Civil War look like a moral crusade to Europe -- Europeans would never stand for their governments aiding the pro-slavery South in a war to end slavery; and 2) to hopefully cause slave revolts within the Confederacy. The first part worked, the second part didn't. But it's also important to note that Lincoln intended to send every black person, slave and free, back to Africa (or to Haiti) whether they liked it or not. Money was appropriated for this purpose, but in the horrendously corrupt administrations that followed, it was squandered. So what are we arguing here? Lincoln was a tyrant and a traitor. I lament John Wilkes Booth's killing of him, because I would have preferred for him to be hung for treason.