There is perhaps no topic that exhibits the wide divide between the general public and libertarian circles as much as the discussion of the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. While Lincoln is ranked by nearly every historian as either the first or second best President (interchangeably with George Washington), one cannot discuss the Civil War with many libertarians without them decrying Lincoln’s “tyrannical” actions as President. With Lincoln celebrating his 206th birthday today, I feel it fitting to examine just how libertarians should analyze the former President’s legacy.

To begin, there is no question that Lincoln’s legacy has been immensely fictionalized over the past 150 years. Perhaps because of his leadership during wartime, apparent opposition to slavery, assassination at a fairly young age or some combination of all three, Lincoln is remembered by most Americans as one of the greatest leaders and most noble men in our country’s history. Needless to say, we should always be careful when engaging in such hero worship, no matter what historical figure we are observing. [RELATED: A libertarian defense of John Brown]

Libertarians will often point out that Lincoln was one of the first “imperial” American Presidents. He suspended the right of habeas corpus during the Civil War and his actions in blockading Southern ports led to the Prize Cases, where the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled his actions constitutional. In order to fund the Civil War, Lincoln enacted the first federal income tax, including the predecessor to the IRS, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Lastly, many libertarians claim that the Southern states had the constitutional right to secession, and therefore, Lincoln was wrong to attempt to stop them from doing so.

All of these are valid criticisms of Lincoln. However, what becomes problematic is when these same libertarians shift their admiration to the Confederacy. As pointed out by libertarian and historian Jason Kuznicki, the Southern states’ reasons for leaving the Union was not to exercise their Constitutional rights, but rather explicitly to protect slavery. They claimed to abhor the federal government’s interventions in their state economies, but openly lobbied for it when it was necessary to maintain slavery (like with the Fugitive Slave Act). Once the new CSA was founded, conscription was enacted and “big government” quickly reared its ugly head.

Taking these facts and using them to examine how we should discuss Lincoln in the modern era, we should tread lightly. It is fair to challenge Lincoln’s (likely unconstitutional) actions during the course of the Civil War. It is important to learn lessons from each side’s mistakes in attempting to further the causes of liberty.

However, it does not do our movement any good to zero in on Lincoln and attempt to re-fashion common thought through ad hominem attacks on his presidency. Lincoln is perhaps the perfect example of how we should and should not approach so many issues when discussing with those outside the liberty movement. We cannot bring our own narratives into a conversation and expect them to be readily accepted. We must be sympathetic to opposition voices and take into account what we know is the general consensus.

Secondly, we cannot use our criticisms of Lincoln as a way of sympathizing with the Confederate States. The only thing worse than attacking a universally beloved figure is connecting our movement to a nation whose legacy is synonymous with slavery, which is perhaps the most anti-liberty institution in history. To that effect, we should never invoke the Confederate flag or other symbols of that era while advocating for liberty. Additionally, it is far too often that I hear libertarians proudly say “sic semper tyrannis”—the first words of John Wilkes Booth after he murdered Lincoln.

In closing, it is difficult to discuss legendary and controversial figures like Lincoln; those which are viewed in one way by nearly all Americans, and another by the liberty movement. Lincoln’s legacy is especially different, as it has been long entrenched in most people’s minds, and therefore, most will be resistant to changing their thinking. We should use this singular figure as a broader lesson on how to spread the message of liberty.