The Imaginary Abe Lincoln

[KeyserSoze]

...it mandated the outlawing of the Atlantic slave trade.

It protected slave imports from the U.S. so don't pretend that the South went all squishy on the slave trade. Had the South won their independence then there is no doubt in my mind that slaves would have continued to come in - from the U.S., from Cuba, and from Africa. The demand for the trade was too high.

 

[Potomac Pride]

DiLorenzo could not find his historical hind end with both hands and a flashlight, in broad daylight.

Yes, the man is that horrible at American Civil War history and anyone who refers to him as a source or some sort of proof in a debate about Lincoln, the Civil War, etc., runs the very real risk at not being taken seriously as a student of that time in history.

I have read the man's books, I have run down his sources (when he bothers to give such or does not constantly change them in later editions of his books), and found that he just flat-out lies.

At best, he can be called a cheerleader and no where close to being labeled a historian, not even a bad one.

Like I said, I have read his books.

Vent over,
Unionblue

I know that DiLorenzo's book about Lincoln caused a lot of controversy but that is because his research is based on political economy which is outside the boundaries of most traditional historians. "The Real Lincoln" received its fair share of criticism. However, some of the other books that he has written have received favorable reviews.

 

[Sid J.]

I know that DiLorenzo's book about Lincoln caused a lot of controversy but that is because his research is based on political economy which is outside the boundaries of most traditional historians. "The Real Lincoln" received its fair share of criticism. However, some of the other books that he has written have received favorable reviews.

What specific historical documentation are you claiming DiLorenzo used which is "outside the boundaries of most traditional historians"?

 

[rpkennedy]

I know that DiLorenzo's book about Lincoln caused a lot of controversy but that is because his research is based on political economy which is outside the boundaries of most traditional historians. "The Real Lincoln" received its fair share of criticism. However, some of the other books that he has written have received favorable reviews.

The Real Lincoln wasn't criticized because it is base on political economics, it was criticized because it was so poorly researched. Read the review that Cash provided to show a number of examples of how DiLorenzo was either incompetent or outright lying about his information.

Another major issue with him is that his works are almost entirely based on his personal political ideology and he attempts to spin everything to that end, and doesn't even do that well since he can't get his facts straight.

R

 

[wilber6150]

As soon as their state legislators allowed it. South Carolina legislature turned a deaf ear to the interior's plea for more slaves, rejecting an 1802 bill to reopen the African slave trade by an overwhelming margin. In 1803 it was finally reopened by a 55-47 vote. Several times, bills were presented to close the trade but they were narrowly defeated until the Federal ban went into effect.

But you have to ask what was the reasons for them voting agasint it, was it to protect the value of their current slaves and their efforts to civilize them by chance and not actually a statement against slavery..

 

[unionblue]

I know that DiLorenzo's book about Lincoln caused a lot of controversy

It mainly caused great gales of laughter and tons of disgust.

but that is because his research is based on political economy which is outside the boundaries of most traditional historians.

I'll put this as plain as I can. DiLorenzo did NOT base his book, The Real Lincoln, on "political economy" or any other type of topic that required historical proof or fact. It is based solely on the man's personal opinion and his ability to take actual sources and twist them completely out of the intention they actually made to reinforce that opinion. This is a trip down fantasy lane for anyone who simply wants to "believe" without being troubled by actual historical fact.

"The Real Lincoln" received its fair share of criticism.

It has been completely buried by the author's inability to do actual research and/or tell the truth.

However, some of the other books that he has written have received favorable reviews.

Read those reviews carefully and find out who actually writes them.

DiLorenzo has not changed in his style or inability to do serious research or present actual historical fact to support his premises.

He is a fast food caterer to a small segment of believers.

He should never be taken seriously as a historian, ever.

Unionblue

 

[Georgia Coast]

Not late for the Constitutional debates.[/quote]


Not late for the Constitutional debates.[/quote]


That (the Constitutional debates) wasn't part of my post and I didn't mean to snip that part in quoting...my bad. Just noting that slaves were still coming in, in spite of the law. All the way up to the Wanderer, as Johan_Steele notes.

 

[dvrmte]

But you have to ask what was the reasons for them voting agasint it, was it to protect the value of their current slaves and their efforts to civilize them by chance and not actually a statement against slavery..

The domestic and foreign slave trade were both banned at the time the bill was presented. Separate votes were held on opening the domestic and then the foreign trade. Finally, the vote was on opening both of them. That resulted in a 55-47 vote to reopen both. When you examine who voted for what, it's obvious there were many reasons for and against reopening either slave trade. The areas that predominately voted for reopening both were in the new cotton lands in the interior and the area along the coast from Charleston down to the Georgia line. The latter were the areas Sea Island cotton was grown. Rice planters voted predominately against opening the trade.

Cotton production hadn't hit the Upcountry in a major way yet and they weren't adequately represented in state politics either. The Upcountry was still practically a frontier and the trade was only regional at the time due to the primitive transportation routes. That condition would change drastically over the next few decades.

Profits from selling slaves to the newly opened areas of the Louisiana Purchase were a factor in the timing of the bill but not the final vote.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xEC9K7quBoEC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=lacy k ford reopen slave trade&source=bl&ots=rZZJ4mLRoh&sig=GmN7Al9WVUeJfBx7-CYhPXzjQp8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QXpYUZmHDY-29gT2hYEQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lacy k ford reopen slave trade&f=false

 

[ole]

Follow the money. New slaves would lower the value of held slaves.

 

[CSA Today]

Read those reviews carefully and find out who actually writes them.

DiLorenzo has not changed in his style or inability to do serious research or present actual historical fact to support his premises.

He is a fast food caterer to a small segment of believers.

He should never be taken seriously as a historian, ever.

Unionblue

While at it, it is well to carefully examine the backgrounds and motivations of those criticizing the reviews.

"The North, having won the war on the battlefield, immediately set out to win it again and consolidate victory on the printed page. A flood of books appeared, and the South took umbrage at most of them. A new invasion was on, and the South must meet words with words – but words based on historical facts."
E. Merton Coulter

 

[ole]

While at it, it is well to carefully examine the backgrounds and motivations of those criticizing the reviews.

Call crock.

 

[jgoodguy]

Follow the money. New slaves would lower the value of held slaves.

Exactly.

New, poor slave owner want to be vs established wealthy slave owners. Now who has the most political influence?

 

[KeyserSoze]

While at it, it is well to carefully examine the backgrounds and motivations of those criticizing the reviews.

Oh by all means enlighten us. This should be entertaining.

 

[wilber6150]

While at it, it is well to carefully examine the backgrounds and motivations of those criticizing the reviews.

"The North, having won the war on the battlefield, immediately set out to win it again and consolidate victory on the printed page. A flood of books appeared, and the South took umbrage at most of them. A new invasion was on, and the South must meet words with words – but words based on historical facts."
E. Merton Coulter

Motivation? Like wanting to see an accurate portrayal of the facts and history, not cherry picked lines meant to distort what people actually said? Would that be a motavation? Maybe a better question is why would someone interested in history defend an author who has been proven many times to a better fictional writer then historian..

 

[jgoodguy]

While at it, it is well to carefully examine the backgrounds and motivations of those criticizing the reviews.

Why? If someone does not like a review, they can factually criticize the review showing where the errors are, otherwise they are attacking the person and not the facts.

Are you up to taking a criticism and showing where it is not supported by facts.

 

[dvrmte]

In 1760 South Carolina banned the trade but the law was disallowed by the Royal authorities. The Colonial legislature then levied a heavy tax on the trade in 1764 in an attempt to slow the growing number of slaves because it "may prove of the most dangerous consequence."

 

[CSA Today]

Call crock.

"Abraham Lincoln is the Christ-figure of the Nationalist Narrative, and the Lincoln gospel goes something like this: God led English Puritans to the City Upon the Hill on the Banks of Massachusetts Bay, but these budding Americans ruined paradise by allowing slavery to gain a foothold in North America. After many years of wandering in the Great American Desert and watching slavery flourish among the Southern descendants of Cain, Americans were awakened when John "The Baptist" Brown burst onto the scene, preparing the way for the Lord, who appeared, lying in a log cabin, in the little town of Somewhere, Kentucky."
Stephen M. Klugewicz

 

[CSA Today]

Why? If someone does not like a review, they can factually criticize the review showing where the errors are, otherwise they are attacking the person and not the facts.

Are you up to taking a criticism and showing where it is not supported by facts.

Uh yeah, but so far none of the Lincoln devotees have been forthcoming with what they so blithely call facts. The only fact I've seen thus far is their knee jerk defense of their icon from anything smacking of too close scrutiny and God forbid --criticism.

"Abraham Lincoln is the Christ-figure of the Nationalist Narrative, and the Lincoln gospel goes something like this: God led English Puritans to the City Upon the Hill on the Banks of Massachusetts Bay, but these budding Americans ruined paradise by allowing slavery to gain a foothold in North America. After many years of wandering in the Great American Desert and watching slavery flourish among the Southern descendants of Cain, Americans were awakened when John "The Baptist" Brown burst onto the scene, preparing the way for the Lord, who appeared, lying in a log cabin, in the little town of Somewhere, Kentucky."
Stephen M. Klugewicz

 

[KeyserSoze]

"Abraham Lincoln is the Christ-figure of the Nationalist Narrative, and the Lincoln gospel goes something like this: God led English Puritans to the City Upon the Hill on the Banks of Massachusetts Bay, but these budding Americans ruined paradise by allowing slavery to gain a foothold in North America. After many years of wandering in the Great American Desert and watching slavery flourish among the Southern descendants of Cain, Americans were awakened when John "The Baptist" Brown burst onto the scene, preparing the way for the Lord, who appeared, lying in a log cabin, in the little town of Somewhere, Kentucky."
Stephen M. Klugewicz

Call bigger crock.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Uh yeah, but so far none of the Lincoln devotees have been forthcoming with what they so blithely call facts. The only fact I've seen thus far is their knee jerk defense of their icon from anything smacking of too close scrutiny and God forbid --criticism.

Have you read none of the posts around here? Facts are delivered constantly. You just refuse to accept them.