Unlike these one-dimensional philosophers of negative liberty, however, Lincoln understood that secession and war had launched a revolution that changed America forever. Eternal vigilance against the tyrannical power of government remains the price of our negative liberties, to be sure. But it is equally true that the instruments of government power remain necessary to defend the equal justice under law of positive liberty.
I’m not sure if I agree with this. The epilogue summed up the book so well, but this afterward written 15 years later seems to show signs of the rot of postmodernism that has fully engulfed academia in 2021.
I don’t believe Lincoln was attempting to “redefine” liberty to also mean the government can and should equitably distribute what it views as liberties to its citizens as the author seems to imply with his analogy to someone who lacks the “liberty” to read and write.
As far as I can tell, Lincoln’s point in the previously mentioned quote is that your own individual liberty cannot continue past the point where it infringes upon the liberty of another individual. Not because Lincoln doesn’t want it to, but because the act itself is antithetical to any argument you yourself would be making in favor of liberty. He wasn't attempting to broaden the definition, he was merely pointing out that he rejected the South's definition. The prevailing moral argument Lincoln seems to rely upon repeatedly is the antithetical nature of a person's “liberty to enslave”.
I may be reading too much into the author's intent here.
