A Note On Footnotes(Lincoln Bashing)

When I was younger I hated the fuss and bother of adding proper footnotes to my papers. I never thought my teachers would read them, and I almost never used them in the books I was reading. Some genres, like the science fiction I used to consume in bulk, didn't even have them. And when I indulged my appetite for history books, where they were to be found, I never looked at them.

All that has changed for me since I discovered the awful screed, The Real Lincoln, by Professor DiLorenzo. That book, which so completely misunderstands Lincoln's character and statesmanship, has made me a footnote addict, and opened my eyes to the extent of lies and half truths found in Southern revisionist writing.

It all started when I read the surprising claim that "in virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion the nationalization of money ..." I had read the debates and taught them for over a decade, and I had never noticed this agenda of Lincoln's, so I looked for a footnote to help me locate the passage I had missed. Not there. Not only the footnote, but, as I found after several hours of intense re-reading, not the agenda either.

But there were a number of footnotes, taking me to the sources for other surprising claims, such as that Lincoln had mocked the claim that "all men are created equal[!]" I looked that one up in the place the footnote pointed to and ... NOT THERE! Then I did a word search on the complete Lincoln internet site. And I found the quote. Lincoln was citing another man's words, and stating his strong disagreement with them!

Another footnote in DiLorenzo's book is given to back up the claim that Lincoln, as a member of the Illinois legislature in 1857, urged a yes vote on a bill to spend money to deport free blacks. Wait a minute ... Lincoln wasn't in the legislature in '57. Checking the book cited, I found that it didn't say he was. Professor DiLorenzo had just made up that part. But the other book did say that Lincoln had supported the spending, and gave ... you guessed it ... footnotes. So I checked them. There are two, and neither one takes you to evidence of any kind for the claim.

Another search like this, in another revisionist book on Lincoln, turned up a spurious racist quote from Lincoln whose real original was in Tom Dixon's novel, The Clansman. That's the book used as the basis for the famous film, The Birth of a Nation.

All these are examples of false or unsourced claims intended to damage Lincoln, and one way you can sniff them out is by their odor of hatred, and their strangeness. "Lincoln didn't say that!" you think to yourself, and, sure enough, you find that he didn't.

Other cases are harder to track down, because they do sound like the words of the man in question. There is a little list of pro-enterprise and pro-responsibility sentences attributed to Lincoln which surfaces from time to time in GOP gatherings. I used to have a copy, but it's long gone now. No great loss, since Lincoln never said or wrote those things.

Many Americans, including President Reagan, used to quote Tocqueville in a long and moving passage that includes the words, "America is great because she is good." A lovely sentiment, and it sounds like Tocqueville. But it's not in Democracy in America, as was pointed out in the Weekly Standard a few years ago.

I guess there isn't too much damage done by this last instance, though truth is at all times to be honored. The lies told about Lincoln are quite another matter, and if you ever enter the eerie world of anti-Lincoln "scholarship, keep in mind what [I believe] Ronald Reagan really did say when he was President: "Trust, but verify!" And do follow a few of the footnotes.

If I understand you, I agree with you.

In my article at the top of this thread, I said, "when I was younger ..." I meant when I was much younger, and greedily reading all sorts of things, not in a scholarly or controversial setting.

Later, as a Graduate School student and beyond, I did, of course, follow some footnotes, with complete trust, to see what else was out there, and to deepen my understanding.

It was only recently, when I met the LewRockwell/DiLorenzo school of "scholarship" that I began to mistrust citations, and feel a need to chase them down.

That experience has been quite enlightening to me.

Cheers,

Richard F.

To you, I say, there is no point in our engaging in further discussion. We get nowhere, and merely vex each other. We probably do best to express our love for the American Republic, and resolve to work for good and common causes in our own time.

To others, I say, do read DiLorenzo's book, and then check with more reputable authorities. I recommend Shelby Foote, McPherson, David Donald, William Miller, Jaffa, the West Point Atlas, Bruce Catton, and, in general, the more reputable historians.

On J. Q. Adams's views on secession, the 1839 "Jubilee Discourse," which is not readily available, should appear this summer on my website, Declaration Foundation

Having said what I wish to say, and not wishing to provoke further ill-will, I think I will not revisit these matters much in the near future.

Best to all,

Richard F.

If I understand you, I agree with you.

From your post, yes you understood …Sorry for any lack of clarity in the first post ... chalk it up to being a touch dyslexic that shows when writing fast and being very tired

Richard:

Is my understanding correct that you are the author of the original article?

To you, I say, there is no point in our engaging in further discussion. We get nowhere, and merely vex each other.

The issue does seem to be dwindling down, but I don't think it's a complete loss where we've gotten nowhere. If nothing else, we've explored a couple of the issues more thoroughly - for example, Lincoln's tariff letters. At times it may seem tedious, but the ground covered can be healthy.

We probably do best to express our love for the American Republic, and resolve to work for good and common causes in our own time.

I'll agree and there is definately both room and a need for that. We live in a vibrant period in history and also one with an unhealthy political and cultural situation emerging on the left. But there also must always be room for dialogue within a movement as well. I was reading an article by Jaffa last night discussing conservatism in the post cold war era. While I don't often agree with the Abratollah, he did raise a valid point. The cold war presented a necessity of a conservative coalition throughout the movement. That coalition had to be because the battle of the day was against communism in the soviet world and elsewhere. Communists are still around, but the nature of the battle has changed. A victory in the cold war is what disrupted it, but also opened the conservative movement to greater dialogue internal to itself.

It can at times be intense and even bitter, but it is also a necessity afforded to us by a unique time in history. But it also refines the movement as a whole and better prepares it for future battles ahead, including the inevitable time when a coalition of the right must again push forth together to defeat the left.

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.