Posted on 04/24/2002 9:22:24 AM PDT by Ditto
We are forever in debt to Dr. diLorenzo. In his efforts to show that Lincoln was actually a not-so-crypto commie, he has provided us with a new exegetical technique which sheds light on, well, on just about everything! The left wing of the Supreme Court will soon be using diLorenzian interpretation to show that the Constitution mandates ex post facto law when it states, "Ex post facto law shall be passed." (It's in there, believe us: Article I,9.3)
Now, as to our Lord and his hitherto misunderstood Sermon on the Mount, let us go to the text and look at Jesus' own words.
Matthew 5:31 -- Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.
Matthew 5:38 -- An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
No doubt expressing his frustration with the law Jesus only pretends to fulfill, He also and indisputably says, "Hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:40, King James Version)
Okay. Game's over. What was the point?
The point is that Jesus said no such things. Sure, the words left His mouth. But in the divorce and retaliation statements He put up what others had said only to contrast His teaching with theirs. The divorce statement is followed by his hard teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. The "eye for an eye" is opposed to His famous dictum to "turn the other cheek". At least that's how most of us would read the Scriptures.
But DiLorenzo is not most of us. Embedded in the following is a quote he attributes to Lincoln:
"Lincoln even mocked the Jeffersonian dictum enshrined in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. He admitted that it had become 'a genuine coin in the political currency of our generation.' But added, 'I am sorry to say that I have never seen two men of whom it is true. But I must admit I never saw the Siamese twins, and therefore will not dogmatically say that no man ever saw a proof of this sage aphorism.'"
[We've highlighted the words which DiLorenzo says demonstrate Lincoln's contempt for the Declaration ideas of equality.]
Now, DiLorenzo says these words were spoken in the first Lincoln-Douglas Debate. He errs. They are actually from Lincoln's 1852 eulogy to Clay. (That would be Henry, not Cassius.) And here's the full quote:
We, however, look for, and are not much shocked by, political eccentricities and heresies in South Carolina. But, only last year, I saw with astonishment, what purported to be a letter of a very distinguished and influential clergyman of Virginia, copied, with apparent approbation, into a St. Louis newspaper, containing the following, to me, very extraordinary language--
“I am fully aware that there is a text in some Bibles that is not in mine. Professional abolitionists have made more use of it, than of any passage in the Bible. It came, however, as I trace it, from Saint Voltaire, and was baptized by Thomas Jefferson, and since almost universally regarded as canonical authority ‘All men are born free and equal .”
“This is a genuine coin in the political currency of our generation. I am sorry to say that I have never seen two men of whom it is true. But I must admit I never saw the Siamese twins, and therefore will not dogmatically say that no man ever saw a proof of this sage aphorism.”
This sounds strangely in republican America . The like was not heard in the fresher days of the Republic.
So Lincoln dissed the Declaration of Independence just the same way Jesus taught retaliation and approved divorce.
In the article posted below, we show how diLorenzo will cherry pick words from reviews and then cobble them together to make something he then presents as a quote. Of course, one can prove anything with this technique. Above We assert that the Constitution requires ex post facto law. Of course the full article says, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." And our Lord is saying that the "Law and the Prophets" derive from the commands to love God and one's neighbor. At least that's what we think He says.
But then, we're not a professor and not privy to the secret techniques of professorial gematria.
Again we have to burden you with quotes within quotes.
On page 54 of The Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo tells the reader:
“Roy Basler, the editor of Lincoln's Collected Works, commented that Lincoln barely mentioned slavery before 1854, and when he did, ‘his words lacked effectiveness.’
[We'll identify our source for all this information at the end of this rant.]
Now the common, non-professorial, person would think that, if diLorenzo is telling the truth, Roy Basler is saying that when Lincoln mentioned slavery, "his words lacked effectiveness".
Here's what Basler really says:
Although the speech [that is, Lincoln's Dred Scott Speech] contains some of the most memorable passages in his writings, it lacks the unity of effect which marks his best. The truth is that Lincoln had no solution to the problem of slavery except the colonization idea which he had inherited from Henry Clay, and when he spoke beyond his points of limiting the extension of slavery, of preserving the essential central idea of human equality, and of respecting the Negro as a human being, his words lacked effectiveness.
Again, the garden variety reader, upon seeing what Basler actually wrote, would conclude that when Lincoln talked about limiting the extension of slavery or preserving the cventral idea of human equality, and of respecting the Negro his words did NOT lack effectiveness.
So Lincoln's speeches on slavery were ineffective to just the same degree that the Constitution requires ex post facto law and just as much as Jesus urged us to "Hang all the Law and the Prophets".
At this point we gratefully acknowledge that all the information above about diLorenzo's book and the sources he misquotes comes from an article by Professor David Quackenbush. Some professors evidently still know how to read.
Quackenbush and others associated with the Declaration Foundation think a very great deal of Lincoln, and their response to diLorenzo's quite extraordinary book is motivated as much by concern for defending Lincoln's memory against lies as by anything else.
Our concern is more general. We think academics and academies ought to at least pretend to have some concern for the truth and to "do that thing they do," which is to practice some kind of scholarship.
WE think there are only two possible explanations for diLorenzo's remarkable book. He may intend to mislead, perhaps to curry favor with a group of Lincoln bashers who will reward him by buying his book.
Or he may have had a boat payment due or something and thought that a cult book would sell. so he got a graduate student or two and told them "find anything you can that makes Lincoln look bad." Then he took the index cards with quotes and citations the poor students had assembled, and based a likely story on them.
That is, diLorenzo was dishonest, irresponsible, or incompetent. If there is another construction that can be placed on the kind of work we have cited, we'd like to know what it is.
The diLorenzo book has, deservedly, been under assault since before its general release. The response of the Lincoln bashers is, generally, to say that the objections raised do not bear upon the conclusions diLorenzo draws.
Now this may be so. We can envision a universe in which both Lincoln AND diLorenzo are scoundrels. But why are sympathetic reviewers of the book calling it meticulously researched? Our beloved Walter Williams says
DiLorenzo does a yeoman's job in documenting Lincoln's ruthlessness and hypocrisy
(Read it.)
to which we can only say "yeoman's job" -- maybe, scholar's job -- certainly not. If there are facts to show that Lincoln was a tyrant, why don't they stick to the facts? Why the necessity to cobble together this chimera?
We, personally, confess a fondness for a "states rights and the heck with the union" attitude. But if the scholars to whom we look for support can only come up with proofs like this, that position looks weaker and weaker.
And this reflects sadly on our polity. The responsibilities of Freedom include wisdom and discretion. If the great arguments about this great country are going to be nothing but exchanges of insutls and lies, it does not bode well for the republic, nor, we hasten to add, for any state which might someday successfuly secede. If they are going to erect the structure of their secessionary polities on a foundation as weak as that provided by DiLorenzo, how can they expect to stand?
Laughter is the best medicine ... for fanatics.
Cheers,
Richard F.
Cheers,
Richard F.
Notice the absence of Confederate glorifiers on this thread? Could it be that most of them are finally coming to grips with the phoniness of the "history" that has been peddled to them by charlatans like DiLorenzo?
I pinged you earlier.
Regards,
Richard F.
And be sure to visit the fabulous site at the top.
Cheers,
Richard F.
Since laughter is the best medicine, and DiLorenzo is a joke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.