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

To: Fish out of Water
No, your Clintonian spin about DiLorenzo's inept or nonexistent scholarship was pathetic.

When DiLorenzo has Lincoln serving in the Illinois Assembly in 1857 when he didn't, that's not a "minor" error.

12 posted on 06/20/2002 3:47:12 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Poohbah
When DiLorenzo has Lincoln serving in the Illinois Assembly in 1857 when he didn't, that's not a "minor" error.

It's especially disturbing because, apparently, he simply made it up.

Moreover, the source he used to make Lincoln a supporter of "deportation" of free blacks lacks evidence for his claim, too. Dr. D. didn't check his sources, when they fit his bias. And it turns out they were wrong.

The most comical of his errors is the citation of the words of the VA clergyman as though they were Lincoln's; the most blantanly pro-CSA of the small ones is his account of the military campaigns, and especially his claiming that the Army of the Potomac didn't get within 50 yards of the CSA lines at Fredericksburg; the deepest is that he never even notices that J.Q. Adams and Madison distinguished, as did Lincoln and nearly the whole founding tradition, legal secession and natural rights based revolution. The next deepest of his errors is a failure to distinguish perfect social and political equality from the issue of slavery. This leads him to use abolitionists against Lincoln, an to pretend that it is a great discovery of his that Lincoln's resistance to slavery was politically distinct from Phillips, Garrison, et. al., a fact known to any literate person for a century or more.

He gives no evidence for the take he wants the reader to have on the Gen. Dix/John Howard affair, he misreads David Donald, he persists in a lunatic reading of the Bank issue in the debates and in the Dred Scott speech, he misleadingly truncates a key quote on the Fugitve Slave law, he takes an historically naive and unsupported view of the possibility of peaceful emancipation, and makes a dozen or more similar slips or omissions or false insinuations.

The book is a mess.

And the more its folly is exposed, the better.

"Wide Awake" for Lincoln,

Richard F.

13 posted on 06/20/2002 4:15:48 PM PDT by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Poohbah
Coming from someone who like Bill Clinton supports a big central government I must assume that your reference to "Clintonian spin" was intended as a compliment.
14 posted on 06/20/2002 5:02:49 PM PDT by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | 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