Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men

Jeffrey Hummel has written the best short book on the Civil War focusing on political,  legal,  and constitutional issues.

He reports that early in 1861 when only 7 states had seceded Lincoln endorsed a plan to win the South back into the union with an unamendable amendment guaranteeing slavery against federal interference, forever.

The South rejected the offer.

To keep Maryland in line he occupied the state,  declared martial law, suspended habeas corpus,  replaced the government with a federal,  unionist puppet based on rigged elections after arresting legislators opposed to him and, when Chief Justice Taney demanded habeas corpus, the law, and the courts be respected he ignored the man and ordered his subordinates to do the same.

Taney castigated him vigorously.

Lincoln wrote out orders for his arrest,  but never went so far as to execute the warrant.

Is this supposed to be part of the "enslaving free men" mentioned in the title?

Somehow using "enslaving" metaphorically in a title making reference to emancipation of actual slaves just seems inappropriate.

The contrast between actual slavery and whatever abuse the metaphor refers to is, 99 times out of a hundred, so glaring the metaphor seems childish and silly.

Libertarians whining about being taxed for purposes their ideology does not approve often angrily shout people so taxed are slaves.

Ayn Rand used to drivel on in that way, too.

But if you think you are a slave just because you live under a regime you disapprove of let someone make you one for real and then you will learn the difference!