Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

POLITICALLY CORRECT HISTORY - LINCOLN MYTH DEBUNKED
LewRockwell.com ^ | January 23, 2003 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo, PHD

Posted on 01/23/2003 6:06:25 PM PST by one2many

<!-- a{text-decoration:none} //-->

CONTENT="">

 

Politically Correct History

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

The political left in America has apparently decided that American history must be rewritten so that it can be used in the political campaign for reparations for slavery. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago inserted language in a Department of Interior appropriations bill for 2000 that instructed the National Park Service to propagandize about slavery as the sole cause of the war at all Civil War park sites. The Marxist historian Eric Foner has joined forces with Jackson and will assist the National Park Service in its efforts at rewriting history so that it better serves the political agenda of the far left. Congressman Jackson has candidly described this whole effort as "a down payment on reparations." (Foner ought to be quite familiar with the "art" of rewriting politically-correct history. He was the chairman of the committee at Columbia University that awarded the "prestigious" Bancroft Prize in history to Emory University’s Michael A. Bellesiles, author of the anti-Second Amendment book, "Arming America," that turned out to be fraudulent. Bellesiles was forced to resign from Emory and his publisher has ceased publishing the book.)

In order to accommodate the political agenda of the far left, the National Park Service will be required in effect to teach visitors to the national parks that Abraham Lincoln was a liar. Neither Lincoln nor the US Congress at the time ever said that slavery was a cause – let alone the sole cause – of their invasion of the Southern states in 1861. Both Lincoln and the Congress made it perfectly clear to the whole world that they would do all they could to protect Southern slavery as long as the secession movement could be defeated.

On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000). The proposed amendment read as follows:

ARTICLE THIRTEEN

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

Two days later, in his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln promised to support the amendment even though he believed that the Constitution already prohibited the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. As he stated:

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable (emphasis added).

This of course was consistent with one of the opening statements of the First Inaugural, where Lincoln quoted himself as saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

That’s what Lincoln said his invasion of the Southern states was not about. In an August 22, 1862, letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley he explained to the world what the war was about:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.

Of course, many Americans at the time, North and South, believed that a military invasion of the Southern states would destroy the union by destroying its voluntary nature. To Lincoln, "saving the Union" meant destroying the secession movement and with it the Jeffersonian political tradition of states’ rights as a check on the tyrannical proclivities of the central government. His war might have "saved" the union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically as the country became a consolidated empire as opposed to a constitutional republic of sovereign states.

On July 22, 1861, the US Congress issued a "Joint Resolution on the War" that echoed Lincoln’s reasons for the invasion of the Southern states:

Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

By "the established institutions of those states" the Congress was referring to slavery. As with Lincoln, destroying the secession movement took precedence over doing anything about slavery.

On March 2, 1861 – the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate – another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it.

Nor would the Republican Party, which enjoyed a political monopoly after the war, have insisted that the Southern states rewrite their state constitutions to outlaw secession as a condition of being readmitted to the Union. If secession was really unconstitutional there would have been no need to do so.

These facts will never be presented by the National Park Service or by the Lincoln cultists at the Claremont Institute, the Declaration Foundation, and elsewhere. This latter group consists of people who have spent their careers spreading lies about Lincoln and his war in order to support the political agenda of the Republican Party. They are not about to let the truth stand in their way and are hard at work producing "educational" materials that are filled with false but politically correct history.

For a very different discussion of Lincoln and his legacy that is based on fact rather than fantasy, attend the LewRockwell.com "Lincoln Reconsidered" conference at the John Marshall Hotel in Richmond, Virginia on March 22.

January 23, 2003

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.

Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com

Thomas DiLorenzo Archives

Really Learn About the Real Lincoln
Now there is a study guide and video to accompany Professor DiLorenzo's great work, for homeschoolers and indeed anyone interested in real American history.
http://www.fvp.info/reallincolnlr/

     

 

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page



TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: dixielist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 801-808 next last

1 posted on 01/23/2003 6:06:26 PM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner; shuckmaster
FYI

Sic Semper Tyrannis!

2 posted on 01/23/2003 6:07:47 PM PST by one2many ( "Truth is the one worthy Grail; follow where she leads")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty; Budge
Thought you might appreciate the ping...
3 posted on 01/23/2003 6:08:58 PM PST by TheBattman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Print this up and get to passing it around the water cooler. That's whatI'll be doing.
4 posted on 01/23/2003 6:42:28 PM PST by D. Miles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D. Miles
Thanks.

Unfortunately the products of the factory schools of today cannot access the prose of the correspondence between learned men of that era. Hence they throw their minds up and turn away in dismay and never mine the truths of history within. Someone would do us all a great favour to put the two letters into the vulgate of our time.

Takers?

5 posted on 01/23/2003 6:52:04 PM PST by one2many ( "Truth is the one worthy Grail; follow where she leads")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: one2many
I recall reading that after the war there was a proposal in front of Congress that contained 3 choices concerning slaves, including shipping them back to Africa.
6 posted on 01/23/2003 7:22:12 PM PST by T. Jefferson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. Jefferson
I am not aware of that but I would be quite interested in know more about it. Thanks.
7 posted on 01/23/2003 8:20:10 PM PST by one2many ( "Truth is the one worthy Grail; follow where she leads")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: one2many
read later
8 posted on 01/23/2003 8:29:12 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
Thanks for the ping. Bump for later... (bedtime now)
9 posted on 01/23/2003 9:32:14 PM PST by Budge (God Bless FReepers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: one2many
This was posted once before, I'm thinking.

I don't know what DiLorenzo's agenda is, but it has nothing to do with a fair reading of historical events.

Walt

10 posted on 01/24/2003 5:38:46 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: one2many
This of course was consistent with one of the opening statements of the First Inaugural, where Lincoln quoted himself as saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

I guess DiLorenzo thinks he is being clever, but it's in any general text on Lincoln or the war that his bedrock position was that slavery not be allowed to into the national territories. That was enough to set off the slave power, and the war came.

Walt

11 posted on 01/24/2003 5:42:08 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: one2many
On March 2, 1861 – the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate – another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that secession was outside the law in The Prize Cases (1862). The president's powers were adequate to put down the rebellion under the Militia Act of 1792, which was cited by the Court in the majority ruling.

DiLorenzo is just preying on the ignorant by incompletely rehashing events, the history of which are readily available in the record.

Walt

12 posted on 01/24/2003 5:47:20 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Nor would the Republican Party, which enjoyed a political monopoly after the war, have insisted that the Southern states rewrite their state constitutions to outlaw secession as a condition of being readmitted to the Union.

The Republican Party had a political monopoly before the war too, because the slave power made sure to split the Democratic Party to ensure the election of Lincoln.

They did this to facilitate a destruction of the United States. Their aim was a slave empire stretching into South America and encompassing all the Carribbean.

For example:

" Senator A. G. Brown said September 4, 1858, that he wanted Cuban, Mexican, and Central American territory for slavery; "I would spread the blessings of slavery . . . to the uttermost ends of the earth." Such utterances treated slavery as permanent, and assumed that it must be defended at every point."

---- "The Coming Fury" by Bruce Catton

See also "Battle Cry of Freedom", by James Mcpherson, especially Chapter 3, "An Empire for Slavery".

Walt

13 posted on 01/24/2003 5:56:51 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Neither Lincoln nor the US Congress at the time ever said that slavery was a cause – let alone the sole cause – of their invasion of the Southern states in 1861.

My emphasis

See what a convenient little lie this is?

DiLorenzo is -surely- familiar with Lincoln's second inagural address:

"One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."

DiLorenzo's interpretation can only stand with out of context, flawed data, and it can only sway the ignorant and hateful.

Walt

14 posted on 01/24/2003 6:03:55 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: one2many
These facts will never be presented by the National Park Service or by the Lincoln cultists at the Claremont Institute, the Declaration Foundation, and elsewhere.

As President of the Declaration Foundation, I take the chance to say that we are honored to be mentioned, even with malice by the writer, with the Claremont Institute.

This latter group consists of people who have spent their careers spreading lies about Lincoln and his war in order to support the political agenda of the Republican Party.

Freepers who know anything about Alan Keyes, the Chairman of DF, and me, its president, will no doubt be amused at the ignorance of this remark. In the recent controversy over affirmative action, I have both praised and criticised the administration's actions, as I do regularly. I praise them when I think them faithful to American Principole, and criticise when they are not, as was notably the case in the stem cell matter.

They are not about to let the truth stand in their way and are hard at work producing "educational" materials that are filled with false but politically correct history.

To judge this for yourself, go and order our book.

Having fought political correctness for over a decade, served as vice-chair of the anti-race preferences California Civil Rights Initiative, labored against the establishment ... and partly Republican "School-to-Work" scheme, and even published in Journals on the debased idea of "multi-culturalism" I find DiLorenzo's remarks more comical than offensive.

Finally, as to being unwilling to let the selected facts cited by DiLorenzo be spread, I will, as I usually do with his silly writings, post them at the DF website.

I'll also post there Jaffa's latest piece criticising the notion of Diversity, as embodied in the Republican Administration's brief in the Michigan affirmative action cases ... from the Claremont website.

Cheers,

Richard F.

15 posted on 01/24/2003 6:07:58 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Both Lincoln and the Congress made it perfectly clear to the whole world that they would do all they could to protect Southern slavery as long as the secession movement could be defeated.

I guess one could claim Lincoln and the Congress were doing all they could to "protect Southern slavery", if you ignore the fact that the Republican Party was totally opposed to any expansion of slavery.

I guess that's protection of a sort.

A more reasonable interpretation than DiLorenzo's is that Lincoln and the Congress were willing to tolerate slavery where it already existed, but they were adamant (at least Lincoln was) that slavery remain on a path to ultimate extinction.

Whatever Lincoln thought, it was vastly more advanced that what some southerners were saying:

It was because the free Negro menaced the institution, because manumission undermined it, because all self-help systems for the slave corroded It, that pro- slavery men urged new legislation. Their object was not to surround slavery with an atmosphere of terror. It was to shore up an institution built on quick- sand and battered bv all the forces of world sentiment and emergent industrialism.

Ruffin was personally the kindliest of masters. The unhappy fact was that it had become impossible to safeguard slavery without brutal violence to countless individuals; either the institution had to be given up, or the brutality committed.

The legislators of Louisiana and Arkansas, of Alabama and Georgia, with humane men like Ruffin and the Eastern Shore planters of Maryland, had faced this alternative. They had chosen the institution. The Richmond Examiner stated their choice in unflinching language:

It is all an hallucination to suppose that we are ever going to get rid of slavery, or that it will ever be desirable to do so. It is a thing that we cannot do without;that is righteous, profitable, and permanent, and that belongs to Southern society as inherently, intrinsically, and durably as the white race itself. Southern men should act as if the canopy of heaven were inscribed with a covenant, in letters of fire, that the negro is here, and here forever—is our property, and ours forever—is never to be emancipated—is to be kept hard at work and in rigid subjection all his days.

This has the ring of the Richmond publicist Fitzhugh, and would have been repudiated by many Southerners. But Jefferson Davis said, July 6, 1859, "There is not probably an intelligent mind among our own citizens who doubts either the moral or the legal right of the institution of African slavery." Senator A. G. ' Brown said September 4, 1858, that he wanted Cuban, Mexican, and Central American territory for slavery; "I would spread the blessings of slavery . . . to the uttermost ends of the earth." Such utterances treated slavery as permanent, and assumed that it must be defended at every point."

-- "The Coming Fury" by Bruce Catton

16 posted on 01/24/2003 6:11:14 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdf
To judge this for yourself, go and order our book.

Nice plug Richard. I'm sure all those who have attacked people who criticized DiLorenzo without reading his book, will withold all criticism of your arguments until they read yours. :-)

Incidentally, your book ordering link is broken. Here is a corrected one.

17 posted on 01/24/2003 6:16:17 AM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: one2many
I wonder how long it will take Bubba-2 to invite JJ to the White House and declare him one of his bestest friends? You can be sure he will be giving this his full support if it's in the news right before the 2004 elections.
18 posted on 01/24/2003 6:21:06 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington
Thanks for the correction.

Folks in a hurry can order the book at half price as a pdf download.

Cheers,

Richard F.

19 posted on 01/24/2003 6:24:17 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
They did this to facilitate a destruction of the United States. Their aim was a slave empire stretching into South America and encompassing all the Carribbean.

And here I was thinking Bubba-2 wasn't a traditional Republican! I was wrong all along,and it looks like the Republicans of the 1860's may yet get their wish. Sooner or later they will manage to destroy US sovereignty and join with Mexico,and then the corporations will take over as the Constitution is replaced,and we will all become employees/serfs/slaves.

20 posted on 01/24/2003 6:25:06 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
Who is Bubba-2?

Walt

21 posted on 01/24/2003 6:27:02 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: one2many; billbears; 4ConservativeJustices; GOPcapitalist
Mr. "I'm not posting anymore" is peddling his wares on this thread.
22 posted on 01/24/2003 7:09:11 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Who is Bubba-2?

Jorge "Ali Bubba" Bush,who else?

23 posted on 01/24/2003 7:14:38 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington
I'm sure all those who have attacked people who criticized DiLorenzo without reading his book

The irony is that many folks who have never read DiLorenzo's book or heard his speeches are the ones who attack him most. In fact if you search on old FR threads, these guys were bashing the book before it came out.

24 posted on 01/24/2003 7:16:24 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Mr. "I'm not posting anymore" is peddling his wares on this thread.

Having been absent from this dying forum for quite some time I am curious as to which of the distortionists allowed that he-she-it would be posting no more? ;^)

Wouldn't be ole "cut-n-paste-crapola" hisself would it?

25 posted on 01/24/2003 8:13:43 AM PST by one2many ( "Truth is the one worthy Grail; follow where she leads")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
...and that historical "record" was written by WHICH SIDE?

The vanquished, right?

26 posted on 01/24/2003 8:40:05 AM PST by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
...and that historical "record" was written by WHICH SIDE?

The vanquished, right?

The -record- is written by both sides. Then it is interpreted. Some interpretations have stronger bases in the record that others.

DiLorenzo's interpretation is poorly supported and presented with an agenda already in place. He has a poor interpretation.

If I were you, I'd decide on my own interpretation based on the what the people of the day said and did. That is what I do.

Walt

27 posted on 01/24/2003 8:44:46 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
A more reasonable interpretation than DiLorenzo's is that Lincoln and the Congress were willing to tolerate slavery where it already existed, but they were adamant (at least Lincoln was) that slavery remain on a path to ultimate extinction.

Nonsense. The Lincoln's little pro-slavery amendment would have had the effect of artificially extending the institution well beyond its likely life by making it near impossible to repeal at a future date. You can fib all you like about The Lincoln, Walt, but that won't make his amendment go away nor will it change the text of that amendment, which would have protected slavery indefinately.

28 posted on 01/24/2003 8:53:15 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Mr. "I'm not posting anymore" is peddling his wares on this thread.

Curious. And it looks like you can get it for half price or something. I guess he overestimated his print order with Kinkos.

29 posted on 01/24/2003 8:58:31 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist; stainlessbanner
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828843/posts?page=1
30 posted on 01/24/2003 9:10:54 AM PST by one2many ( "Truth is the one worthy Grail; follow where she leads")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
LOL

Clarewho?

;^)

31 posted on 01/24/2003 9:12:58 AM PST by one2many ( "Truth is the one worthy Grail; follow where she leads")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: one2many
Whut? I dint foller whatcher ment their.
33 posted on 01/24/2003 9:17:05 AM PST by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Looks like Richard's still at it over at the declaration website as well. Here's his latest little rant. I've included my own remarks on it below

DECLARATION FOUNDATION'S "EDUCATION PAPERS" cont... by Dr. Richard Ferrier, President

At the Declaration Foundation, we have devoted a substantial portion of our civics textbook to an examination of Abraham Lincoln as a model "Declarationist Statesman."

That is to be expected. Use of The Lincoln as a national civic model is a central tenet of the Claremonster agenda and of those who follow it.

We have also exposed the many errors, big and little, that fill a dreadful new book, inappropriately titled "The Real Lincoln," by Professor Thomas DiLorenzo.

A while back I composed a list of the declaration/claremont grievances with DiLorenzo's book, each alleged in dozens of articles they have posted attacking it. The sum of those volumous rants ammounts to virtually nothing more than about 5 or 6 oft repeated complaints. None significantly changes, alters, or refutes any of the major arguments put forth in DiLorenzo's book. Out of those complaints, several are nothing more than hyperanalyzed typos of negligable significance or disputed interpretations of a text misrepresented as errors. The one factual error they did find out of the 200 page book was a contextual problem with a single Lincoln quote that has since been corrected for by the author.

Today, doing a google search for reputable reviews that have supplemented our own work at DF , I came across a new site that offers "The Real Lincoln Workbooks and Videos," as well as DiLorenzo's book, to the homeschool market. Most homeschool mothers are not scholars.

A good many homeschool mothers have greater teaching credentials than the majority of what exists in our public highschools today. While they may not all be college professors, it is condescending and presumptuous to declare that they lack scholarly ability.

Few will have the resources to discover the real character of this malicious and incompetent book.

The continued arrogance of Ferrier's statement aside, there is nothing preventing any homeschool mother from obtaining information on DiLorenzo's book, be it positive or negative, that any one of us could find. It stands to reason that a competant homeschooler could make an educated judgment about the book without biased parenting from the Declaration foundation.

Consequently, a number of good, innocent families will ingest intellectual and civic poison from this source.

Notice the assumptions of this statement. In one stroke Ferrier concludes against "ingesting" what he calls "civic poison" in DiLorenzo's book, yet never once does he bother to establish the attribute he assigns to it. In addition, the sum of his previous attempts to establish that attribute has proven woefully inadequite.

We at DF will do our best to issue a "product warning." We ask you to do the same. And, by all means, look over the links that reveal just how false and ugly a portrait of the Great Emancipator is painted in Dr. DiLorenzo's book.

In other words, read the declaration foundation and claremont websites. Notice that no suggestion is ever made to examine the other side of the issue, namely sites that praise DiLorenzo's book, and reach an educated conclusion from the sum of them.

One of the worst things that can happen to the homeschooling movement is for it to attract the scorn of our fellow citizens because it appears to teach "tin foil hat" nonsense.

This statement ammounts to nothing more than a fallacious appeal to image and misstated popularity combined with marginalization for the purpose of dismissal. By declaring DiLorenzo's book, which challenges the popular perception of The Lincoln, as an unpopular view and by further characterizing that view with the name "tin foil hat," Ferrier completely avoids having to intrinsically consider DiLorenzo's argument and its validity. This sets him up for an appeal to image among the homeschoolers. His message on this one is simple: "Take my word for it - if you read this book it will make your movement look bad." Sorry Richard, but your argumentation is extremely sloppy for a person of your credentials.

It's worse if the materials are un-American, as well.

His next appeal is to emotion. It is essentially, "don't read this book because it is un-American." This tactic permits Ferrier to fallaciously dismiss DiLorenzo's book while avoiding its content entirely.

Please join us in saving parents from teaching their children falsehoods, and spare the homeschool movement from suffering unnecessary contempt from Americans.

Again Ferrier is repeating the fallacious image appeal. Very sloppy indeed.

34 posted on 01/24/2003 9:40:40 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Problem is, the "people of the day" are all DEAD and, since there was no electronic recording at the time, we have nothing to rely on but the WRITTEN RECORD. And, historically, that record -- or as much of it as is allowed to be preserved -- is ALWAYS written by the WINNERS.

Case in point: Roosevelt ordered the brass press plates of all books NOT reprinted for a certain number of years resmelted for cartridges for the WWII effort. SEVERAL of those books (one by George Bancroft, founder of the Naval Academy among other things) dealt with subjects FDR would prefer remain out of the public domain to the extent he could remove them. Bancroft's book, "A Plea For The Constitution, Wounded in The House of Its Gardians") dealt with the evils of UNBACKED PAPER MONEY (which FDR was then merrily printing as fast as possible.

Fortunately, two printed copies of Bancroft's book were later found and reprinted by a friend of mine in the early 80s.

UNfortunately, as is now the case with Lincoln, NOBODY seems to WANT the TRUTH, preferring the more comfortable REVISIONIST version of events.

Tell me again that part about "agendas"...

35 posted on 01/24/2003 9:57:19 AM PST by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
A more reasonable interpretation than DiLorenzo's is that Lincoln and the Congress were willing to tolerate slavery where it already existed, but they were adamant (at least Lincoln was) that slavery remain on a path to ultimate extinction.

Nonsense. The Lincoln's little pro-slavery amendment would have had the effect of artificially extending the institution well beyond its likely life by making it near impossible to repeal at a future date.

It's nonsense to suggest that slavery was on its way out, of that anyone thought that at the time. In any case, the slave power wasn't convinced of the possible benefits of remaining in the Union. Read the secession documents of the so-called seceded states.

Walt

36 posted on 01/24/2003 10:27:24 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
It's nonsense to suggest that slavery was on its way out, of that anyone thought that at the time.

Not in the least. Between roughly 1820 and 1880 practically every single nation in the western world abolished slavery by peaceful means. America was the only one where it came as a result of a massive war of conquest.

37 posted on 01/24/2003 10:32:12 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
UNfortunately, as is now the case with Lincoln, NOBODY seems to WANT the TRUTH, preferring the more comfortable REVISIONIST version of events.

It's DiLorenzo who wants revision. He quotes Lincoln in 1862:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

But he ignores the rest of the letter:

"I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,

A. LINCOLN"

If you add that part of the letter, it hurts the interpretation that DiLorenzo is pushing, so he ignores it, as he ignores the whole thrust of Lincoln's position:

"I confess that I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes and unwarranted toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no such interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union."

8/24/54

"I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."

August, 1858

"The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied, and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they only apply to "superior races."

These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect. -- the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard -- the miners and sappers -- of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us. This is a world of compensations; and he that would -be- no slave, must consent to --have-- no slave. Those that deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it."

3/1/59

"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not. ....peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."

8/23/63

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel...

In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the Nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God."

4/4/64

"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."

4/11/65

sources: "Abraham Lincoln, Mystic Chords of Memory" published by the Book of the Month Club, 1984 and:

"Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1859-65, Library of the Americas, Don E. Fehrenbacher, ed. 1989

DiLorenzo would just as soon you not see the whole record of Lincoln's words come out.

Lincoln in 1860

Walt

38 posted on 01/24/2003 10:43:35 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
It's nonsense to suggest that slavery was on its way out, of that anyone thought that at the time.

Not in the least. Between roughly 1820 and 1880 practically every single nation in the western world abolished slavery by peaceful means.

The war came because the slave power resisted a peaceful settlement.

Keeping slavery out of the national territories would have been a good foothold on a peaceful solution and the slave power was adamantly opposed.

Maybe President Lincoln was right when he said that if every drop of blodd drawn by the lash must be matched by one drawn with the sword, then no one could say that the judgments of the Lord were not true and righteous.

That is because the slave power was not willing to give up slavery without a fight. You'll not get the record fairly considered to say anything else:

"The Richmond Examiner stated their choice in unflinching language:

" 'It is all an hallucination to suppose that we are ever going to get rid of slavery, or that it will ever be desirable to do so. It is a thing that we cannot do without;that is righteous, profitable, and permanent, and that belongs to Southern society as inherently, intrinsically, and durably as the white race itself. Southern men should act as if the canopy of heaven were inscribed with a covenant, in letters of fire, that the negro is here, and here forever—is our property, and ours forever—is never to be emancipated—is to be kept hard at work and in rigid subjection all his days. ' "

-- "The Coming Fury" by Bruce Catton

"We have the Executive with us, and the Senate & in all probability the H.R. too. Besides we have repealed the Missouri line & the Supreme Court in a decision of great power, has declared it, & all kindred measures on the part of the Federal Govt. unconstitutional null & void. So, that before our enemies can reach us, they must first break down the Supreme Court - change the Senate & seize the Executive & by an open appeal to Revolution, restore the Missouri line, repeal the Fugitive slave law & change the whole governt. As long as the Govt. is on our side I am for sustaining it, & using its power for our benefit, & placing the screws upon the throats of our opponents".

- Francis W. Pickens, Governor of South Carolina, June,1857

No one at the time thought American slavery was on its last legs, although the slave power stumbled down the one road that would strip them of their human property the fastest.

Walt

39 posted on 01/24/2003 10:56:16 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
The Lincoln's little pro-slavery amendment would have had the effect of artificially extending the institution well beyond its likely life by making it near impossible to repeal at a future date.

It wasn't Lincoln's amendment. He agreed to it to try and stop the rebellion.

Lincoln's bedrock position was that slavery not be allowed into the territories. He knew if slavery were limited to the areas where it currently existed, it would collapse. Like any empire, the slave empire had to either expand or die. The slavers knew it too. The slave power was willing to fight rather than see any restraint put on slavery whatsoever.

Walt

40 posted on 01/24/2003 11:04:17 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Use of The Lincoln as a national civic model is a central tenet of the Claremonster agenda and of those who follow it.

Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln....

-- Ronald Reagan , first inaugural address, January 20, 1981

"A hundred and twenty years ago the greatest of all our Presidents delivered his second State of the Union Message in this chamber. "We cannot escape history," Abraham Lincoln warned. "We of this Congress and this Administration will be re membered in spite of ourselves." The "trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation." Well, that President and that Congress did not fail the American people. Together, they weathered the storm and preserved the union. Let it be said of us that we, too did not fail ; that we, too, worked together to bring America through difficult times. Let us so conduct ourselves that two centuries from now, another Congress and another President, meeting in this chamber as we're meeting, will speak of us with pride, saying that we met the test and preserved for them in their day the sacred flame of liberty this last, best hope of man on Earth.

-- Ronald Reagan , State of the Union Address -January 26, 1982

"We knew then what the liberal Democrat leaders just couldn't figure out....I heard those speakers at that other convention saying "we won the Cold War" -- and I couldn't help wondering, just who exactly do they mean by "we"? And to top it off, they even tried to portray themselves as sharing the same fundamental values of our party! What they truly don't understand is the principle so eloquently stated by Abraham Lincoln:

"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." If we ever hear the Democrats quoting that passage by Lincoln and acting like they mean it, then, my friends, we will know that the opposition has really changed. Until then, we see all that rhetorical smoke, billowing out from the Democrats, well ladies and gentlemen, I'd follow the example of their nominee. Don't inhale."

---Ronald Reagan, 1992 Republican Convention Speech

Walt

41 posted on 01/24/2003 11:21:52 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
The Lincoln's little pro-slavery amendment would have had the effect of artificially extending the institution well beyond its likely life by making it near impossible to repeal at a future date. You can fib all you like about The Lincoln, Walt, but that won't make his amendment go away nor will it change the text of that amendment, which would have protected slavery indefinately.

Kind of like what the confederate constitution did from the get go.

42 posted on 01/24/2003 11:22:43 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: one2many; sc-rms; catfish1957; THUNDER ROAD; Beach_Babe; TexConfederate1861; TomServo; ...
God bless DiLorenzo for keeping the truth out there in the face of liberal socialist revisionism.
43 posted on 01/24/2003 11:24:37 AM PST by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
God bless DiLorenzo for keeping the truth out there in the face of liberal socialist revisionism.

It's DiLorenzo that is doing the revision.

Walt

44 posted on 01/24/2003 11:26:04 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
The war came because the slave power resisted a peaceful settlement.

Nonsense. The war came because The Lincoln wouldn't have it any other way. He intentionally acted in a manner that both instigated violence and exacerbated it. To the former effect, he sent a fleet of warships to Sumter with the clear intent of instigating a conflict. To the latter, he raised armies of invasion to expand that conflict when it erupted into full fledged war and further dispositioned several non-seceded states toward war by way of those armies and the blockade.

Keeping slavery out of the national territories would have been a good foothold on a peaceful solution

No, not really. As a "solution" it offers nothing to address the desire for political separation from the north.

Maybe President Lincoln was right when he said that if every drop of blodd drawn by the lash must be matched by one drawn with the sword, then no one could say that the judgments of the Lord were not true and righteous.

Or maybe his saying so was an arrogantly presumptuous attempt to rationalize away the sins of his own side by blasphemously characterizing them as divinely acceptable retribution against the sins of another. Sorry Walt, but The Lincoln was not a god and for him to claim legitimacy in his crusade of sin by calling it something other than sin is a blasphemous perversion of the truth and the Christian religion.

"The Richmond Examiner stated their choice in unflinching language

Quote a fringe opinion all you like, Walt. That won't change the fact that even your own source said that opinion was not representative of those beyond the fringe. In the meantime I'll happily point out Robert E. Lee's opinion. He said "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages."

And also for the record, you'll have a hard time convincing much of anyone, Walt - even your own - that opinions from the Fitzhugh fringe were more representative of the south than those of Lee, a mainstream southern figure if there ever was one.

45 posted on 01/24/2003 11:28:13 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
It's DiLorenzo that is doing the revision.

Evidence please. What facts in DiLorenzo's article do you dispute, Walt.

46 posted on 01/24/2003 11:29:30 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that secession was outside the law in The Prize Cases (1862).

First of all, it was 1863. Secondly, it was not unanimous. Thirdly, the "Prize Cases" decided nothing about secession and made no attempt to. It was strictly about whether or not Lincoln had the authority to post the blockade since Congress had not declared war when he did it. In the "Prize Cases", the Supreme Court only decided that war existed between the two parties and that the president had the authority to react to a state of war before congressional declaration. No decision was made in regards to the legality or illegality of secession, and they did not declare the war to be an illegal insurrection. Those points were not the issue, and they avoided them.

The president's powers were adequate to put down the rebellion under the Militia Act of 1792, which was cited by the Court in the majority ruling.

The Militia act was 1795, not 1792. They cited it and the one of 1807 to show the president had authority to react to a state of war before Congressional declaration. They did not brand the war an illegal insurrection as you deceitfully suggest. From the majority decision:

"he is authorized to call out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States. If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority. And whether the hostile party be a foreign invader, or States organized in rebellion, it is none the less a war, although the declaration of it be "unilateral."

Also:

"The president was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name, and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact."

Once again, they only decided that a state of war existed and the President has the duty to react before Congressional declaration. The type or nature of that war was immaterial to the issue at hand. It seems you are completely rehashing events, the history of which are readily available in the record.

47 posted on 01/24/2003 11:29:55 AM PST by thatdewd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
It wasn't Lincoln's amendment.

The historical documents say otherwise:

Letter from William Seward to Abraham Lincoln
Washington Dec. 26, 1860.

My Dear Sir,

Having been hurried away from home by information that my attendance here on Monday would be necessary, I had only the opportunity for conferring with Mr Weed which was afforded by our journey together on the rail road from Syracuse to Albany.

He gave me verbally the substance of the suggestion you proposed for the consideration of the Republican members, but not the written proposition. This morning I received the latter from him and also information for the first time of your expectation that I would write to you concerning the temper of parties and the public here.

I met on Monday my Republican associates of the Committee of Thirteen, and afterwards the whole committee. With the unanimous consent of our section I offered three propositions which seemed to me to cover the ground of the suggestion made by you through Mr Weed as I understood it.

First. That the constitution should never be altered so as to authorise Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states. This was accepted.

----

The committee records display a text for this proposition "first" that is identical to that of the amendment The Lincoln endorsed in his inaugural address.

48 posted on 01/24/2003 11:37:45 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
So Reagan said a couple nice things about Lincoln. Lots of politicians do that. It doesn't make him a Claremonster though, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Also, I thought you didn't like President Reagan. Yet now you're quoting him? Go figure.

49 posted on 01/24/2003 11:40:52 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
If you add that part of the letter, it hurts the interpretation that DiLorenzo is pushing, so he ignores it, as he ignores the whole thrust of Lincoln's position:

No, not really and quite to the contrary. DiLorenzo's thesis is that The Lincoln was a politician with great skill at manuevering and advancing himself politically. The last part of that letter is a concession by The Lincoln, in nicer words of course, that he was ready to manuever whatever way it took to get his desired result of victory. He says so himself - "I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause" etc.

50 posted on 01/24/2003 11:45:10 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 801-808 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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