Oh, I don't think anything of the sort has happened. You're just mad that I called you on missing the entire point of this thread and needed to throw out an attack to cover yourself.
Spooner was an abolitionist and a very radical one at that.
Most abolitionists were very radical, and I fully concede Spooner was one of them, though his radical drive was more restrained than the murderers and domestic terrorists of his movement at the same time.
Abolitionists only made up a small fraction of the anti-slavery side in that age.
5% of the northern population according to John Calhoun in 1847. Most estimates put the number at between 5-10% by 1860.
The problem is that abolitionism is most frequently equated, be it accurate or not, with opposition to slavery on "moral" grounds and its name is the one seized by northerners to justify their cause.
The vast majority of anti-slavery people, both north and south, were like Lincoln who favored the gradual elimination of slavery because the understood the political and economic realities.
I'll agree with that, holding that you concede their understanding of political and economic realities to be just that - many opposed slavery for economic and political reasons, not the moral ones frequently attributed to them. You may see this evidenced throughout their writings. Lincoln's famous Peoria speech mentions it when he declares the purpose of opposing slavery's expansion into the territories - to retain those territories for free white laborers to escape to without the competition of blacks. I also invite you to check out Alexis de Tocqueville's commentary on the same subject where he asserted that most northerners hold anti-slavery positions not for the concern of the slaves but for themselves and their economics.
You'll also note that this is Spooner's very grievance in the above essay. He complains that the moralistic claim being made to have freed the slaves was itself fraudulent because the war was not waged to free the slaves and they were only freed because doing so benefitted the northern cause. He continues noting that had they wished the moral title they claim they needed only to say so when they undertook the cause of anti-slavery but they had not.
Radicals like Spooner wanted an immediate end to slavery, fire and brimstone for slave owners
Yes.
and were perfectly willing to destroy the constitution and the nation to reach that goal.
Now that's interesting, because that is exactly what Spooner argued had happened when they did it by what was supposedly "the other way." History gives credibility to his characterization in the most obvious of ways. After all, was not the nation physically destroyed by the war to a degree never before and never since seen? Did not Lincoln trample upon the Constitution's plain meaning in order wage that same war?
To say, as you do, that one could only be pro-slavery or be an abolitionist
I see you've taken up the art of scarecrow conduction. Show me where I ever said anything of the sort as I don't believe you can. I on the other hand would be more than happy to provide you with writing samples from James McPherson where he uses abolitionism and Lincoln interchangably as if they were one in the same to display what he purports to have been THE northern position.
That is a very biased view of Lincoln’s feelings toward slavery. Yes, he opposed it on economic grounds (like Spooner, he saw slavery as a flawed economy that rendered free-labor politically and economically subservient to the wealthy landed class). But any fair reading of Lincoln’s words on slavery show that he also opposed it on moral, religious and philosophical grounds as well. Go here for a compilation of Lincoln’s words on slavery I’d also remind you of the numerous southerners who justified slavery solely on economic grounds and refused to attempt to make a moral case for it.
After all, was not the nation physically destroyed by the war to a degree never before and never since seen? Did not Lincoln trample upon the Constitution's plain meaning in order wage that same war?
The reality is that the largest economic expansion in the history of the world occurred in the 30 years after the war. It is true that much of the south did not enjoy as many fruits from that expansion as did the rest of the nation. But that was the fault of the south itself for attempting to resurrect their pre-Civil War economic and class systems and not breaking the power of the aristocrat class that dominated their politics and economies. The opportunity was there. They did not avail themselves to it.
As to “trampling upon the Constitution” that is your opinion. My opinion is that the southern states had no constitutional right to unilateral secession and attempted to destroy the constitution with their actions.
I see you've taken up the art of scarecrow conduction. Show me where I ever said anything of the sort as I don't believe you can. I on the other hand would be more than happy to provide you with writing samples from James McPherson where he uses abolitionism and Lincoln interchangably as if they were one in the same to display what he purports to have been THE northern position.
I apologize to you if you have not done that, but you know other Lincoln bashers constantly do --- the most notable recently has been Thomas DiLorenzo and his sock-puppet, Walter Williams. (sorry to Dr. Williams --- I respect his economic knowledge, but as a historian --- he’s a pitiful.) Neither, it appears, understands the dynamics of the age or the broad-spectrum of opinions that drove those dynamics. I’m not sure what quotes from McPherson you have in mind, but I would caution that there is and was a significant difference between “abolitionism” and Abolitionists. The American Colonization Society sought the gradual abolition of slavery for over 40 years. Would anyone call members of that organization like Madison or Clay Abolitionists? They were both slave-owners! Abolitionism was a belief that slavery should be ended, and Abolitionists were an organized political faction whose sole purpose was to end slavery through any means available. I return to my analogy over abortion today. I am opposed to abortion on demand for moral, religious and philosophical reasons rooted in our founding documents. But I have no patience with Operation Rescue or other organizations that are willing to use violence to end the practice. I want to work within the laws to settle the issue. A century from now, will some demagogue like DiLorenzo say that I wasn’t opposed to abortion?