Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

A critique of Dr. Delusional, the League of the South shill.
1 posted on 06/20/2002 1:32:23 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyPapa
keep fighting the good fight
2 posted on 06/20/2002 1:44:39 PM PDT by GoreIsLove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WhiskeyPapa
I have been looking for some documentary support for the claim that Lincoln did not attempt to free the slaves immediately upon becoming president because at the time he still held a large portfolio of slave call options at the Charleston Slave Market. I would be satisfied with any written support (other than this post) with or without footnotes.

Thanks.

3 posted on 06/20/2002 1:54:15 PM PDT by ned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WhiskeyPapa
DiLorenzo, the Michael Bellesiles of Lincoln studies.
4 posted on 06/20/2002 2:01:48 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WhiskeyPapa
I would think that your endless rants attempting to defend the ridiculous idea that the States and their Citizens are entirely subordinate to the interests of the Federal Government would have discredited Lincoln fans as much as you seem to think a couple of minor errors discredit the truth about Lincoln.
5 posted on 06/20/2002 2:26:06 PM PDT by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Which came into existence first, the states, or the federal government? I understand Lincoln believed the latter. If true, sounds pretty delusional to me.
7 posted on 06/20/2002 2:39:33 PM PDT by slowry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WhiskeyPapa; rdf
Keep up the good fight!
15 posted on 06/20/2002 7:58:38 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Footnotes are the historian's footprints. I despise endnotes, and I loathe a book without citations.

A good, clear, up-front citation is honesty. Hiding it is the opposite.

Good post, and good work.

18 posted on 06/20/2002 9:30:39 PM PDT by nicollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WhiskeyPapa; rdf
A summary of that entire article's complaints, point for point, could easily be condensed to the following:

1. A complaint over DiLorenzo's characterization of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

2. A complaint about the erronious context quotation by Lincoln.

3. A complaint about the 1857 date.

4. A complaint about an erronious Lincoln quote stated by another author than DiLorenzo that itself had come from a novel.

5. A blanket declaration of void against DiLorenzo's book, supposedly supported by these previous points.

Giving each a due examination, one finds they are nothing but more of the same this particular author has been shouting over and over and over again for several months.

It has been charged that Ferrier has built his entire case against DiLorenzo on 4-5 complaints that he repeats over and over and over again. He has denied this charge, each time asserting there to be "dozens" of unnamed other incidents like his 4-5 complaints. One would think that Ferrier would give some examples of these "dozens" of other complaints to better his case, and I know for a fact that Ferrier has been asked to do so. The above article was a perfect chance for him to do so. Examining its main points, it is clear that he did not. Ferrier made a grand total of three charges against DiLorenzo in this article, all of which he has previously made. Let's take a closer look

The first two of those three have been overanalyzed and hyped so obsessively by Ferrier that little room remains for any substantial further discussion of them on his part.

The one I marked #2 is about a single quote of Lincoln that was printed out of context in DiLorenzo's work and accordingly misinterpreted by accident. DiLorenzo immediately retracted it upon discovery of the error and has since corrected it for future publications. It is simply absurd to attempt to use this complaint to beat him with, as it is no longer even a valid complaint nor does it pertain to any of the significant arguments put forth by DiLorenzo in the book.

The complaint I marked as #1 comes from a single once sentence assertion in DiLorenzo's book regarding the issue of bank policy in the Lincoln Douglas debates. Ferrier conveniently leaves out the complete picture of this issue. It stems from where DiLorenzo asserted the presence of the bank issue having been mentioned in the debates. DiLorenzo overstated his characterization of their prominence, but is correct in asserting the issue to have been mentioned. When Ferrier originally raised the issue of this point, he turned to, as proof, a quotation by James McPherson asserting that "not a word" was said about the issue in any of the debates and declared the issue settled. McPherson's quotation, it turns out, was itself erronious as words were definately said, though they were not prominent as DiLorenzo characterized them. Now Ferrier exempts his earlier mention of this from his discussion, yet lodges the same complaint for what seems like the gazillionth time. He further does so to no significant end, as he fails to again address the major argument of DiLorenzo about Lincoln's economic agenda. Economics emerged only briefly in the debates, but more importantly were indisputably present in Lincoln's statements and letters of the same time and the years that followed.

His other complaint, which I marked #3, pertains to a footnote citation of another author. Ferrier has brought this one up as well. Going back to the cited author given as the source, one finds that, as one of Ferrier's academic friends who he asserts to be a Lincoln scholar put it, the error originated with the other author. DiLorenzo cited that other author and in doing so carried the earlier author's mistake.

Ferrier's inclusion of point #4 is unusual and of no consequence to DiLorenzo's book, therefore making me wonder why he included it in the first place.

As for his conclusion, a blanket dismissal of DiLorenzo's book, it is simply not substantiated. Yet again Ferrier only bothered to re-re-re-reassert a couple of the 4-5 talking point style complaints that have been lodged against DiLorenzo. Interestingly, those that he picked out of his 5 were ones that have either been settled and corrected, or are by no means as cut and dried as he presents them.

In short, more pettyness yet no substance.

27 posted on 06/21/2002 8:30:20 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Bump for great freeping.
30 posted on 06/21/2002 8:43:09 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson