Skip to comments.A Note On Footnotes(Lincoln Bashing)
Posted on 06/20/2002 1:32:23 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
click here to read article
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.
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,
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
Is my understanding correct that you are the author of the original article?
Yes, I wrote it.
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.