Posted on 02/24/2002 5:29:50 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
Your President and Academic Fellow, David Quackenbush, have been on the internet and at this site as a kind of truth squad this week. Lies, and malicious half-truths, told by a certain Professor DiLorenzo, of Loyola College in MD have aroused our concern ... not to say our ire ... and you all deserve a straightforward reason why we feel and act as we do.
It's very simple.
Lincoln, more than any other American statesman, understood himself to be acting from Declaration Principles..
This Foundation is about acting from Declaration Principles.
Your Chairman, Ambassador Alan Keyes, and your President are on record numerous times as holding that Lincoln did exemplify those principles. It becomes our duty, then to correct falsehoods and sneers against the chief exemplar of our mission. Uncorrected, those lies will be retold and believed, by some, to the detriment of this Foundation and the Republic it seeks to serve.
There is an even more fundamental reason we are speaking out.
The American Republic is, as Federalist I put it, a test of whether men could be governed by "reflection and choice." That means by reason. The medium of reason is speech. Lies undermine the power and credibility of speech. Lies about the great and lies about justice undermine political piety and the labors of those who love justice.
These lies cannot, then, be tolerated. And yet, the power of law may not, and should not, be used against them. What is to be done? Good men must expose, refute, and denounce such falsehood and its purveyors.
This we have done, and this we will continue to do.
Liberty and Union, Now and Forever!
Dr. Richard Ferrier
President, Declaration Foundation
"He had power over the Northern people," Davis wrote in his memoir of the war," and was without malignity to the southern people."...Alone of the southern apologists, [Alexander] Stephens held Lincoln in high regard. "The Union with him in sentiment," said the Georgian, "rose to the sublimnity of religious mysticism...in 1873 "Little Elick" Stephens, who again represented his Georgia district in Congress, praised Lincoln for his wisdom, kindness and generosity in a well-publicized speech seconding the acceptance of the gift of Francis B. Carpenter's famous painting of Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation."
...[in 1880] a young law student at the University of Virginia, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, speaking for the southern generation that grew to maturity after the war, declared, "I yield to no one precedence in love of the South. But because I love the South, I rejoice in the failure of the Confederacy"...the leading propenent of that creed was Henry W. Grady, editor of the Atlanta Constitution. In 1886 Grady, thirty-six years old, was invited to address the New England Society of New York, on the 266th anniversary to the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth. General Sherman, seated on the platform, was an honored guest, and the band played [I am not making this up] "Marching Through Georgia" before Grady was Introduced. Pronouncing the death of the Old South, he lauded the New South of Union and freedom and progress. And he offered Lincoln as the vibrant symbol not alone of reconciliation but of American character.
"Lincoln," he said, "comprehended within himself all the strength, and gentleness, all the majesty and grace of the republic." He was indeed, the first American, "the sum of Puritan and Cavalier, in whose ardent nature were fused the virtues of both, and in whose great soul the faults of both were lost."
--From "Lincoln in American Memory" by Merrill D. Peterson P. 46-48
Walt
That's a good point. :)
use the Search feature for "threads and replies" and search on "Lincoln"
Walt
Everyone has their ups and downs. He was neither blessed nor cursed. He was a man with virtue and faults.
While he certainly wasn't St. Lincoln as some would make him out to be, he also wasn't an evil socialist as other's contend.
"The militia act was used for a specific purpose and was not intended to be used for an attack against states wanting to leave the union"
Thank you. The act was intended as authorization, for the Chief Executive's ordering the muster of one or more states' Militia(e), to suppress martial forces acting outside the authority of a duly elected state legislature.
LOL!! My parents always told me the quickest way to show ignorance in an argument is to curse. It shows the limit of your vocabulary. To compare the Confederacy to the Third Reich IMO is the exact same thing. It shows the limit of your knowledge. Many blacks that you and others here apparently want to deny fought for the Confederacy freely and because they loved the South. The monuments are throughout the South testifying to the truth. Also please reread The Slave Narratives published by the United States government in the 1930s. Quite informative. Although there are some instances mentioned of bad slaveowners, more often than not most of the former slaves spoke quite fondly of the Confederacy and less so of the d#mn yankee invasion force
Pseudo scholarship? You know before Gaileo men thought the sun rotated around the earth. To believe otherwise was heresy, it was accepted as popular opinion without much factual backing. Much like the northern position that certain individuals were great leaders and that the war was fought over slavery
You know I've seen a lot of things in my time and I'll admit I've thought Walt has gone a little out there before, but comparing lincoln to Jesus Christ? I can't even respond to that because I would have no idea how to begin. Man, you bought it hook, line, and sinker didn't you?
Lincoln did not submit a bill to send the blacks to africa, he did not suspend the constitution and hold people without trials, he did not post troops at the voting polls, he did not try to fast track in new states that would vote Republican, he did not start an unnecessary war, he did not mean to make jokes about christians before 1860, he did not start a draft, he did not mean what he said about whites being superior to blacks, he did no destruction to southern civilian property, he did not issue paper money, etc.
These are the lies that we must stop.
And as for his loving wife Mary Todd, she was a loving, humble, dutiful, feminine all-woman saint that worshiped the ground her husband stood on.
Also, is it true that not "every" southern soldier owned a bunch of slaves back home?
That is a lie! Lincoln did NOT end slavery in Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, and Missouri, nor did he end slavery in any southern state under union control or that was union occupied. The Emancipation Proclamation was actually quite limited in scope. Lincoln clearly said at the beginning of the war that it was not about slavery.
So, you are saying that Lincoln was actually a pro-slavery Confederate spy, eh? My gosh, that explains why the South actually won the Civil War, doesn't it? Such genius, such clarity of thought... I am spellbound, sir.
Plus it would make it hard to divvy up reparations.
Everything the Nazis did to the Jews was legal.
Walt
Well, you can rest easy, because President Lincoln didn't destroy the Constitution.
Will you condemn Jefferson Davis? He also clearly maintained that the central government could coerce the states.
Don't worry, I know you won't give a yes or no answer on that question.
Walt
Germany had legalized murder, arson, rape, torture, slavery, genocide, theft, ethnic cleansing, extermination, forced deportation and imprisonment etc? Dr. Josef Mengele's experiments were legal?
Sorry, I forgot that along with Lincoln and FDR, you also defend Hitler.
He did? When did the Confederate states secede from the confederacy? When did Davis invade the seceding states? When did Davis raise an army to fight them? When did Davis declare war on them? Clearly? Just as your hero Hitler clearly was an angel and did nothing illegal?
Germany had legalized murder, arson, rape, torture, slavery, genocide, theft, ethnic cleansing, extermination, forced deportation and imprisonment etc? Dr. Josef Mengele's experiments were legal?
Sorry, I forgot that along with Lincoln and FDR, you also defend Hitler.
Wow, a personal attack; what a big surprise.
Yes, everything --every single thing-- the Germans did to the Jews was legal under German law.
Walt
He did? When did the Confederate states secede from the confederacy?
I didn't say that any states seceded from the so-called CSA. I said that Davis maintained that the central government could coerce them.
He did maintain that. See "Battle Cry of Freedom" p 433 by James McPherson.
I knew you wouldn't give a straight answer.
Walt
Why don't you show some documentation for that.
That he considered blacks to be inferior and wanted to send them back to the dark continent is entirely forgotten by the war criminal's apologists.
Then 90% of the anti-slavery movement were as guilty as Lincoln, but were they more guilty the the Southern leaders who denied the very humanity of blacks and fought with all their might to keep all blacks in chains so they could live in luxury?
Some 200,000 of them joined the Union Army. They apparently didn't think too much of their masters.
Not true. Lincoln spoke out against slavery long before it became a popular thing to do. As to his 'racism', where does that leave all those Confederate leaders imortialized in stone and bronze who denied that blacks were even human and who fought to keep them in chains? Is Nathan Bedford Forest a hero to the South? He made over a million dollars as a slave trader before the war.
If you want to use today's standard to judge people in the past, then they were all racists and worse.
I guess the finding of Goering, Hess, Speer et al guilty was just our imagination.
Wow, a personal attack; what a big surprise.
Stating that you defend Lincoln, FDR or Hitler is a personal attack?
Of course, this is coming from a "alleged" conservative who calls anyone who disagrees with him a traitor, or to any one of the other innuendos you spout. Thin-skinned? Then hit the abuse button.
"And the secessionists were no better than common thieves."
WhiskeyPapa, #38, "Hollywood's War Against the South""An interpretation that the so-called seceded states acted in law or propriety can only exist in ignorance of the historical record."
WhiskeyPapa, #46, "Hollywood's War Against the South""Belittling Mr. Lincoln is nothing less than dispicable."
WhiskeyPapa, #58, "Hollywood's War Against the South""Aparently, you are just completely ignorant of the historical record."
WhiskeyPapa, #59, "Hollywood's War Against the South""I am sick to death of this CSA crap."
WhiskeyPapa, #84, "Hollywood's War Against the South""What honest person would take exception to that?"
WhiskeyPapa, #99, "Hollywood's War Against the South""This government is as perpetual as honorable men can make it. Dishonorable men tried to rend it, and they were defeated."
WhiskeyPapa, #113, "Hollywood's War Against the South""Because they levied war on the United States and that is treason."
WhiskeyPapa, #68, "Lincoln Criticism: All Smoke, No Gun""Anyone who suggests that there is anything in the history of this country or the laws of this country that supports legal unilateral state secession is flirting with treason."
WhiskeyPapa, #32, "Let the ad hominem begin""Fortunately, the primary documents are amply available to skewer the cretins."
WhiskeyPapa, #77, "Let the ad hominem begin""I've never voted Republican in a national election."
WhiskeyPapa, #430, "Let the ad hominem begin"
Three current threads. Who's guilty of personal attacks?
That is all completely false. Or can you cite the contemporary record to support any of your statements?
In fact, far from endorsing genocide against the black race, Lincoln was ready to lose the 1864 election rather than rescind the Emancipation Proclamation.
That's right. Can you imagine a politician today sticking with his principles in such a manner? This is not the least reason Lincoln is the greatest American.
"He said, according to Donald's [David Donald's biography], "But now, if he followed their advice, he would have to do without the help of nearly 200,000 black men in the service of the Union. In that case 'we would be compelled to abandon the war in 3 weeks.' Practical considerations aside, there was the moral issue. How could anybody propose 'to return to slavery the black warriors of Port Hudson and Olustee to their masters to conciliate the South?' "I should be damned in time and eternity for so doing,' he told his visitors (Gov. Randall, and Judge Mills, both from Wisconsin). "The world will know that I keep my faith to friends and enemies, come what will.'"
Lincoln's REAL position was the exact opposite of the slanderous lies you would perpetrate.
Walt
Well, this is sort of comical. The problem with my "personal" attacks you supply is that they are not personal. I don't name any person.
Walt
A description you would no doubt also extend to Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and every other southern leader, military or political?
There are two lies that David Quackenbush set out to expose and refute.
*******
From DQ at Worldnetdaily:
[N]ow I will consider the historical accuracy of several of DiLorenzo's claims about what Lincoln said. DiLorenzo claims that "In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda." "This corrupt economic agenda," we are told, was the "Whig/mercantilist agenda of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for the railroad industry, and government monopolization of the money supply."
Here is a simple claim of fact which one can investigate, and upon which the reputation for veracity of a professional historian might well depend. Having reviewed the entire Lincoln-Douglas debates twice since DiLorenzo's astonishing claim on WND, I can find not a single word, in any of the debates, that by any stretch of bad interpretation or misreading, refers in any way, to any economic agenda, corrupt or otherwise. Perhaps Dr. DiLorenzo would care to comment on this fact, having told us that in "virtually every one of the debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion [his] corrupt economic agenda." Better, perhaps he would care to cite a text.
*****
That is the first lie. In brief, that evidence for Lincoln's obsessive interest in his real agenda, a mercantile economic policy, may be found in the Lincoln/Douglas Debates.
No one here has yet defended the truth of DiLorenzo's claim on this point.
To make this shorter, I'll omit the second lie for now, and post it later.
Hope this is helpful,
Richard F.
It is by no means clear that those actions were in conformity with German law.
Unless you're at least 150 years old and were part of the CSA, where is the personal attack?
You mean other than western Virginia? Eastern and central Tennessee provided almost as many men for the Union as for the south. Almost 100,000 men from Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas fought for the North as well. How many Hawkeyes fought for the south?
It is by no means clear that those actions were in conformity with German law.
To be honest, that is something I've always heard, but I have no sources to hand to sustain it. I believe that all Hitler's actions were sanctioned by the German courts. That is a standard aspect of the whole holocaust story. I'll try and get some info on that, and you could do the same, if you disagree with what I say.
Walt
I guess the finding of Goering, Hess, Speer et al guilty was just our imagination.
Goering, Hess and Speer were not tried under German law. Duh.
Some German laws were inhuman. I am pretty sure that was part of the whole "trials at Nuremburg" aspect. The defendants were guilty of crimes against humanity.
German law; what a hoot.
Walt
There's a huge difference between saying something, and killing 630,000 Americans over it. Do you think I would pay for a copy of a book by McPherson? Post the quote.
Come on now,,you seem like a PC type person. Don't you know that if it offends me, it is an attack on me personally???? :)
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.