Posted on 04/29/2002 10:04:22 PM PDT by davidjquackenbush
I have posted at length here on this.
Dr. Demento is a liar and an idiot.
And I find it unhygenic and repulsive for him to put words in my mouth.
My words are on record.
Of course, Dr. D. never respects others' words, so I am not, at this point, disturbed that he lies about me.
He lies about many.
Richard F.
Go ahead, defend Douglas in this claim.
With texts.
Make my day.
Richard F.
Thanks, I will, following Jefferson. - you
A couple of notes. First, while the DoI indisputably has strong Lockean themes in it, it is fallacy to reduce Jefferson to Locke or even equate him in synonym with Locke's positions. Jefferson was far more complex than that and posessed the benefit of a number of other philosophical influences that were unknown to Locke himself due to the timeline alone. The issue of government for which Locke himself is famous, the social contract, is itself not a Lockean idea, but rather one that was merely refined in a certain direction by Locke. It existed before him though in men such as Hobbes and even in an element among some of the ancients, albeit each in a multitude directions. Jefferson merely refined it more, having had the benefit of history preceding him, and did so with precision and its political implementation. Whereas Locke's ideas certainly influenced him, they are not fully equatable thereby making it illegitimate to simply claim Jefferson as a sort of bonus that gets thrown in if you pick up Locke.
Second, I again note my own willingness to cede Locke to you and proudly so. I will concede that certain elements of his philosophical thought were significant positive contributions, but by and large what has occurred in his wake of empiricism is nothing short of a disaster. If you doubt me, follow his philosophy to its consequences. David Hume is perhaps the most famous case of this happening and would be a good place for you to look if you want to see it in its finished form.
Simply put, the result is the reduction (albeit one that I would contend as thoroughly fallacious) of reality first to stricly the empirical and from that to only simple sensory impacts and impressions upon the body. With sensation itself lacking certitude and possessing a potential for deception, the very existence of truth itself becomes denied.
Surely you must see where this is going by now, but in the event that you do not, next comes the reduction of right and wrong to sensory impacts of pain and pleasure. Shortly thereafter comes the denial of ones ability to know reality itself. Soon enough, we find ourselves in a radically skeptical world of relativist vomit completely lacking of any purpose or meaning - in short, the philosophical condition desired and advanced by the radical left as the very means by which they achieve existence in a world of unrestricted license absent of any absolute, any responsibility, or any meaningful consequence.
Locke is a popular voice called upon by many, many conservatives today. On the surface, one may find in him a seemingly promising position to latch upon. Many do, and unfortunately most of them never move beyond it. But make no mistake, deeper down is a danger far greater than even the most promising of the elements seemingly put forth in Locke's writings on government. Inescapably tied to them in the form of Locke is the danger of empiricism and what it brings. Therefore it is advisable to seek the beneficial concepts of government seemingly found in Locke in another source, preferably one that has given them greater refinement in a less disastrous direction. And for the record, among these alternatives, Jefferson is at the very least a reasonable possibility.
I believe you also stated that in taking the position I do on Locke, I show my "true colors", and that doing so "is a good thing."
Yes it is a good thing. Further, if voicing my objections to Locke in light of the problems created by his inescapably empiricist philosophical scheme is to show my true color, it is also to show one I will proudly display.
As I said earlier, you can have all of Locke that you want. I stand by that position.
My only addition to that is that you do so at your own risk.
I believe the most prominent case of Lincoln's self contradiction pointed out by Senator Douglas was the following:
"My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man - this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position - discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal. My friends, I could not, without launching off upon some new topic, which would detain you too long, continue to-night. I thank you for this most extensive audience that you have furnished me to-night. I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." - Lincoln, Debate at Chicago
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior , and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife." - Lincoln, Debate at Charleston
Douglas openly called him on this contradiction during one of the debates, to which Lincoln followed by going into a lengthy process of excusing himself by asserting that he never consciously sought to target the speeches and that the existence of the two speeches in print threw a wrench into attempts to do so anyway.
Here are Lincoln's last words on the subject from the 6th debate. I find them, and his other responses, entirely satisfactory.
*********
Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about having upon a previous occasion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an extract from, at Charleston, says it only shows that I practiced the deception twice. Now, my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to swallow that? [``No, no, we're not such fools.''] Judge Douglas had said I had made a speech at Charleston that I would not make up north, and I turned around and answered him by showing I had made that same speech up north---had made it at Ottawa---made it in his hearing---made it in the Abolition District---in Lovejoy's District---in the personal presence of Lovejoy himself---in the same atmosphere exactly in which I had made my Chicago speech of which he complains so much.
Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the quotation from the Chicago speech: He thinks that is a terrible subject for me to handle. Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the Chicago speech I delivered two years ago in ``Egypt,'' as he calls it. It was down at Springfield. That speech is here in this book, and I could turn to it and read it to you but for the lack of time. I have not now the time to read it.
*******
Douglas is quibbling, and Lincoln was utterly consistent on this matter from Peoria to Chicago, from 1854 to 1858.
There are illuminating discussions of the whole question of equality in Jaffa's "Crisis of the House Divided," [Ch. 17] and Miller's "Lincoln's Virtues" [Ch. 14]. Miller concedes more than does Jaffa, but both agree that Lincoln maintained Declaration Principles in the face of gross race-baiting by Douglas and the Democrats.
Interesting interpretation considering that Lincoln and the Whigs nearly to the man opposed what was arguably the only naked "imperialist" action in our history --- the Mexican War --- in which we seized 50% of their territory. That war had nearly total support in the South because it promised to open more land for slavery which even the “dictatorial” Santa Anna did not allow.
**********
Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of mine, which Judge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes are in very great contrast to each other.
Those speeches have been before the public for a considerable time, and if they have any inconsistency in them, if there is any conflict in them the public have been able to detect it.
When the Judge says, in speaking on this subject, that I make speeches of one sort for the people of the Northern end of the State, and of a different sort for the Southern people, he assumes that I do not understand that my speeches will be put in print and read North and South. I knew all the while that the speech that I made at Chicago and the one I made at Jonesboro and the one at Charleston, would all be put in print and all the reading and intelligent men in the community would see them and know all about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose, that there is any conflict whatever between them. [``They are all good speeches!'' ``Hurrah for Lincoln!'']
But the Judge will have it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality between the white and black races, which justifies us in making them slaves, we must, then, insist that there is a degree of equality that requires us to make them our wives. [Loud applause, and cries, ``Give it to him;'' ``Hit him again.''] Now, I have all the while taken a broad distinction in regard to that matter; and that is all there is in these different speeches which he arrays here, and the entire reading of either of the speeches will show that that distinction was made.
Perhaps by taking two parts of the same speech, he could have got up as much of a conflict as the one he has found. I have all the while maintained, that in so far as it should be insisted that there was an equality between the white and black races that should produce a perfect social and political equality, it was an impossibility. This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I have said, that in their right to ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'' as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are our equals. [Long-continued cheering.]
And these declarations I have constantly made in reference to the abstract moral question, to contemplate and consider when we are legislating about any new country which is not already cursed with the actual presence of the evil---slavery.
I have never manifested any impatience with the necessities that spring from the actual presence of black people amongst us, and the actual existence of slavery amongst us where it does already exist; but I have insisted that, in legislating for new countries, where it does not exist, there is no just rule other than that of moral and abstract right! With reference to those new countries, those maxims as to the right of a people to ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'' were the just rules to be constantly referred to. There is no misunderstanding this, except by men interested to misunderstand it. [Applause.] I take it that I have to address an intelligent and reading community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judge whether I advance improper or unsound views, or whether I advance hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different portions of the country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free from all error in the opinions I advance.
**********
It can not be stressed too much that the heart of the position Lincoln took comes from the Peoria Speech ... nor that, when blacks had proved their virtue on the field of battle, that Lincoln had no need to change a word in that position when he advocated, first emancipation, and then limited civic rights, including voting. After all, "feeling" had changed.
Cheers,
Richard F.
It seems to me that to the contrary, Lincoln got caught, knew he got caught, and like any skilled politician he tried to maneuver his way out of it. His strategy appears to have been first to muddy the water of a clear case with a complex and evasive explanation, and then turn around and use it to accuse Douglas of intentionally misrepresenting him. His argument in this quote, which also happens to be an argument put forth in some of the other debates in order to escape his contradiction, is the assertion that, since the speeches were all in print, it would have been difficult for him to decieve. Such an argument is misleading, as it assumes that his audiences took the time to read all of what is in print, an assumption that was in itself as flawed in his own day as it is today. Even the invention of television and video has not stopped politicians from contradicting themselves from audience to audience - and this even though such contradictions are more easily documented today than they were a century ago. Lincoln's argument rests upon a false assumption.
Regardless of what he says, lost in it all is a true comparison of the actual statements themselves. In one, he specifically calls for an end to what he terms all the dispute over superiority and inferiority. In the other, he specifically asserts a belief that such positions are inescapable and calls for the white man to occupy that of superior. Though Lincoln himself refused to acknowledge a contradiction, it is unavoidably there when viewed directly. Richard Hofstadter addressed this issue by arguing that perhaps in Lincoln's own mind a degree of relativity even existed permitting him to rationalize the two together - he saw no inconsistency. But externally, there was an inconsistency and Douglas rightly called him upon it.
Meanwhile, I happily stand by Lincoln's words in Peoria, and my explication of them.
Do you have a copy of either Jaffa or Miller, BTW? That might make things more efficient.
Richard F.
Gladly. First take the two quotes:
"My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man - this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position - discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal. My friends, I could not, without launching off upon some new topic, which would detain you too long, continue to-night. I thank you for this most extensive audience that you have furnished me to-night. I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." - Lincoln, Debate at Chicago
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior , and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife." - Lincoln, Debate at Charleston
Let them stand as the record.
Now, look at the core of their content. At Chicago, Lincoln stated "let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man - this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position." At Charleston, Lincoln stated "And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
The two contradict on this issue. At Chicago, he denounces the assigning of positions of superiority and inferiority and rejects it as a concept. At Charleston, he says it is inescapable so long as blacks and whites are to live together, then procedes to claim the superior position for whites.
I will concede that Lincoln did often distinguish between core equality of human beings and political equality in his speeches. He specifically did so elsewhere in the debates as a part of his argument. In this case however, the lines are significantly and inescapably blurred, especially on the issue of superiority versus inferiority. Intentional or not, the inconsistency emerges and Douglas rightly called him on it.
After that Lincoln had his opportunity to explain himself. It was a rhetorical tactic used by a skilled politician to escape a corner his opponent had backed him into during a debate. You seem to accept his explanation, and I will agree that the possibility exists in Lincoln's own mind that he himself did not see it as inconsistent. Externally though, the inconsistency is inescapable and seems to be a politician seeking to target his appeal to his audiences.
Do you have a copy of either Jaffa or Miller, BTW? That might make things more efficient.
Not on hand at present. I have seen Jaffa's previously and a copy exists at a library close to me. On a similar note, do you have a copy of Hofstadter (his own politics aside) nearby? His analysis of Lincoln's contradictions could be similarly valuable to this discussion.
All indications are that his favoring of the Whig economic program did not waver. "I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views." - A. Lincoln, October 11, 1859
or socialism as DiLorenzo sometimes intimates.
It is not direct and DiLorenzo never suggests it to be. DiLorenzo does correctly note that Lincoln's economic agenda indisputably had some rudimentary versions of a certain economic theory that also happened to be the same theory used as a base upon which a certain German economist built his entire economic system.
"I have long thought that if there be any article of necessity which can be produced at home with as little or nearly the same labor as abroad, it would be better to protect that article. Labor is the true standard of value." - Abraham Lincoln, February 15, 1861
As I say, I don't know how to describe verbal interchange with such people. It's like going into the ring and fighting Joe Frazier -- you argue with him and he uses his gloves. Arguing with DiLorenzo is like being attacked with fallacy-shrapnel. I've had enough.
GOPCapitalist quotes:
"I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views." - A. Lincoln, October 11, 1859
but, like Dr. Dimento, leaves out the rest of the quote in which Lincoln says that Whigenomics (my coinage - I'm in a hurry here) is NO LONGER his (to use GOPCapitalist's word) "agenda".
"Agenda" means, more or less, "things to be done". But Lincoln clearly says that the issues of slavery is, at the time of his writing, so much more important than anything else that he is pretty much willing to let Whigenomics slide -- that is, to remove it from his list of things to be done.
I don't think this is a nuance. It is a subtlety, but that's not a bad thing. Details of this kind do matter, and we make this kind of distinction in our own lives all the time, as "I still have a strong desire for a Ferrari, but the necessity of keeping a roof over my head is now so important that, while my desire for a Ferrari has never abated, I will not be acting on it any time soon."
Were I to say such a thing and were someone to characterize getting a Ferrari as my "agenda", I would just laugh, since, like LIncoln in the passage referred to above I had just pretty much renounced it as an agenda item, while admitting it was still an desire.
This is not to say that many aspects of Lincoln's economic thinking are not troubling. They are. They're also irrelevant. So, the sub-theme of this entire thread (and of many others), that Dr. Dimento is pretty much entirely unreliable as an assembler and interpreter of the data of historical material, stands, bloody but unbowed.
Selective quoting is just one of his tools (and, unfortunately, one of those of some of his defenders). We also are obliged to enjoy the outright fabrications (Lincoln to the legislature in 1857 - 1857??), the passing of blame to unverifed secondary sources (some identified and some not, see Dimento's apology/blowoff of the remarkable Siamese Twin bobble), and the gnostic insistence that his thesis stands whether or not the facts he uses to support it are really facts. I would have thought that far, far better arguments could be made for the anti-Lincoln POV. As far as I'm concerned the most troubling argument AGAINST the neo-reb position is that the facts they advance to support their stand are so unreliable.
And the second most troubling argument is that when the facts are shown not to be facts, they, or many of them, simply don't care. Their flag, they say, still flies, though the flag pole is "brast to bits". It is suspended in their minds not by the truth but by their strong desire.
De Dawg bark, de ruffi'ns run away!
Check out this link, BTW
Cheers,
Richard F.
for a free dixie,sw
They will just as soon take a part of Texas (Lets say a good number of the south west county’s of Texas) then the whole state..
They just need to concentrate enough of their folks in an area… claim there a new country … bitch to the UN .. and split off on a county or by area
I mean once the secession you predict starts what in the world makes you think state borders will stay respected ....remember Yugoslavia?
If there ever is a U.S. break up it will be a feeding frenzy ...old border will be irrelevant.
And if there is a U.S. break up in the next 50 years the U.N. will stick its nose in it
First because U.S. breaks mean the last national superpower is dead and the U.N. will become the superpower of the world
They will want to insure a peaceful “political correct” split up of the body … and U.N. one worlders types have no love for the U.S.A. or the old C.S.A
In thay event, we Yankees and you Rebs will both be up to our asses in blue helmets
American was formed on the slogan “United or Die”
If it ever dies it will be on the oldest tactic of war "Divide and Conquer"
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.