The Imaginary Abe Lincoln

[dvrmte]

That's like saying the junky isn't opposed to drugs, just the drug trade. South Carolina's oppositon to the slave trade, such as it was, was targeted and selective. Their earliest opposition was in response to a slave revolt in 1739. Their opposition at later times was for similar reasons, as well as economic ones. By 1800 South Carolina was back in the slave trade whole hog, and it's estimated that between them Georgia and South Carolina alone imported 100,000 slaves from overseas between 1800 and 1808.

No they weren't, read my previous post on this thread and you'll see a source showing your error. You're trying to paint with too wide of a brush. There were rice planters that didn't want any more slaves for varying reasons. There were several abolitionist leaning families, one that comes to mind quickly is Grimke.

 

[ole]

Apparently not. The critique that cash posted demonstrated how DiLorenzo got his facts wrong, using several examples which torpedo his arguments.

R

Thanks, rpk. Thought the question had been asked and answered. Obviously, we have posters who ask for evidence, but don't read what is presented. Or ignore it and ask for it to be repeated. Which they won't read either.

 

[Potomac Pride]

I agree, posters critical of DiLorenzo who then complain, something to the effect that his book is unsupported by facts, should explain why they don't think so.

"I have always been struck by the intensity of the feelings generated against slavery and slaveholders in men who had no direct or first-hand contact with either. Yet there was much about their actions and reactions which suggested something more real and personal. I have suggested the possibility that behind the determination to (put) slavery on the road to ultimate extinction there may have lain drives that had little to do with Negro slavery or the American South…"
Avery O. Craven

DiLorenzo could be termed as a revisionist scholar when it comes to Lincoln and the Civil War. After his book "The Real Lincoln" was published, he received severe criticism from certain groups. I think there were several reasons for such a harsh reaction against the book. First of all, DiLorenzo is an economics professor and his book is written from an economics perspective that reflects his own personal ideology. Furthermore, a lot of historians are not that familiar with economics in general. Finally, his personal attacks against Lincoln in the book upset some readers. However, a lot of the critical information in the book regarding Lincoln is nothing new. For instance, DiLorenzo's discussion of the suspension of habeas corpus and suppression of the press have been written about before in various publications. Some of the books that deal with these issues include "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties" by Mark E. Neely and "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln" by James G. Randall.

 

[rpkennedy]

DiLorenzo could be termed as a revisionist scholar when it comes to Lincoln and the Civil War. After his book "The Real Lincoln" was published, he received severe criticism from certain groups. I think there were several reasons for such a harsh reaction against the book. First of all, DiLorenzo is an economics professor and his book is written from an economics perspective that reflects his own personal ideology. Furthermore, a lot of historians are not that familiar with economics in general. Finally, his personal attacks against Lincoln in the book upset some readers. However, a lot of the critical information in the book regarding Lincoln is nothing new. For instance, DiLorenzo's discussion of the suspension of habeas corpus and suppression of the press have been written about before in various publications. Some of the books that deal with these issues include "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties" by Mark E. Neely and "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln" by James G. Randall.

Calling DiLorenzo a scholar is being generous to the man. Someone who can't even get basic facts correct shouldn't be called a scholar.

The harsh criticism to his work came from those who knew he was full of it.

R

 

[jgoodguy]

DiLorenzo could be termed as a revisionist scholar when it comes to Lincoln and the Civil War. After his book "The Real Lincoln" was published, he received severe criticism from certain groups. I think there were several reasons for such a harsh reaction against the book. First of all, DiLorenzo is an economics professor and his book is written from an economics perspective that reflects his own personal ideology. Furthermore, a lot of historians are not that familiar with economics in general. Finally, his personal attacks against Lincoln in the book upset some readers. However, a lot of the critical information in the book regarding Lincoln is nothing new. For instance, DiLorenzo's discussion of the suspension of habeas corpus and suppression of the press have been written about before in various publications. Some of the books that deal with these issues include "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties" by Mark E. Neely and "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln" by James G. Randall.

DiLorenzo is a devotee of Austrian School economics of the Ludwig von Mises school. This is a fringe group of economic thought and a distinct minority. In the US it is associated with far right wing libertarian politics. They have the habit of thinking of the CSA as a libertarian paradise lost to the evil Lincoln. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=0BbdsqJFEMtkilllsML1eg&bvm=bv.44442042,d.eWU

 

[Battalion]

...By 1800 South Carolina was back in the slave trade whole hog, and it's estimated that between them Georgia and South Carolina alone imported 100,000 slaves from overseas between 1800 and 1808.

Are you sure it was South Carolina and Georgia?

 

[Battalion]

OK

IMHO DiLorenzo is a hack.
Opinion. I have no duty to provide evidence. Sorta unfulfilling but DiLorenzo advocates can rush in with opinions that he is not a hack and we have a bunch of opinions.


A DiLorenzo advocate can present a position of DiLorenzo's and evidence. In the end, it is an advocate's duty especially of a controversial figure or position to provide evidence. Or do we just get see plaintive excuses about opposition not being fair and all.

That's what you get because that's how the opposition is. The ones who call DiLorenzo a hack espouse certain authors and books. And these books have as many (or more) errors as the supposed ones by DiLorenzo.

 

[rpkennedy]

That's what you get because that's how the opposition is. The ones who call DiLorenzo a hack espouse certain authors and books. And these books have as many (or more) errors as the supposed ones by DiLorenzo.

It would be difficult to have more errors than DiLorenzo. Although, I believe, most of his errors are those of incompetence rather than malice (in other words, he lets his ideology lead his research rather than the other way around).

R

 

[KeyserSoze]

Are you sure it was South Carolina and Georgia?

Yes.

 

[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

While I would be more careful to examine the why of having to use the quotes of others as argument instead of presenting original sources and research of those who feel a need to defend fantasy vice history.

 

[unionblue]

I agree, posters critical of DiLorenzo who then complain, something to the effect that his book is unsupported by facts, should explain why they don't think so.

"I have always been struck by the intensity of the feelings generated against slavery and slaveholders in men who had no direct or first-hand contact with either. Yet there was much about their actions and reactions which suggested something more real and personal. I have suggested the possibility that behind the determination to (put) slavery on the road to ultimate extinction there may have lain drives that had little to do with Negro slavery or the American South…"
Avery O. Craven

CSA Today,

Go to the search function of this form and type in DiLorenzo.

Frankly, I'm just plain, old, tired of re-proving what a hack this man is when it comes to his inability to provide anything factual about Civil War history.

And frankly, the man's reputation as lack of such proceeds him far longer before I read him. Tell you what, if you have read the book, provide a section you think is factual and I'll reply if I think if it is factual or not.

Until that time,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

That's what you get because that's how the opposition is. The ones who call DiLorenzo a hack espouse certain authors and books. And these books have as many (or more) errors as the supposed ones by DiLorenzo.

Provide the errors of those opposition books and let us compare them to DiLorenzo.

I could use a good laugh.

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

DiLorenzo could be termed as a revisionist scholar when it comes to Lincoln and the Civil War. After his book "The Real Lincoln" was published, he received severe criticism from certain groups. I think there were several reasons for such a harsh reaction against the book. First of all, DiLorenzo is an economics professor and his book is written from an economics perspective that reflects his own personal ideology. Furthermore, a lot of historians are not that familiar with economics in general. Finally, his personal attacks against Lincoln in the book upset some readers. However, a lot of the critical information in the book regarding Lincoln is nothing new. For instance, DiLorenzo's discussion of the suspension of habeas corpus and suppression of the press have been written about before in various publications. Some of the books that deal with these issues include "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties" by Mark E. Neely and "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln" by James G. Randall.

DiLorenzo is termed a revisionist scholar when it comes to Lincoln and the Civil War because he come NOWHERE close to Neely and Randall in terms of their scholarship and conclusions about Lincoln.

The thing that is new about DiLorenzo is his ability to misquote, misinterpret, and flat-out mislead when quoting from them and other Lincoln scholars.

His books make for a great paperweight, help with wobley tables by getting rid of the short leg, and help start fires.

As for history, making excuses for him does not make it any more accurate.

Unionblue
PS I've read his books and run down his sources. He is not a historian nor does he become such from a so-called economic viewpoint either.

 

[CSA Today]

In which case the DiLorenzo advocates are neglectful, depending on the kindness of strangers. An advocate that cannot advocate without depending on someone to read a book first is not much of an advocate. Would anyone hire an attorney that advocated by having the jury read evidence or elect a politician who merely advised folks to read his book.

Imagine Dilorenzo advocates asking folks to read the book to agree with them. An expensive book for as much as $45 and the investment of several hours of reading. Odd. A good advocate will put forth arguments with evidence so that the average joe can see the rightfulness of their cause. A good advocate's job is to convince not give out a reading assignment.

Sounds like a good start for those critical of DiLorenzo's book. Not bothering to read the book comes across as a group of uninformed people wringing their hands over something they know nothing about other than someone has tarnished the halo of their anointed Lincoln.

It's not the book's advocates that are critical of the book or claiming to have facts refuting the contents.

"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

 

[rpkennedy]

Sounds like a good start for those critical of DiLorenzo's book. Not bothering to read the book comes across as a group of uninformed people wringing their hands over something they know nothing about other than someone has tarnished the halo of their anointed Lincoln.

It's not the book's advocates that are critical of the book or claiming to have facts refuting the contents.

"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

Again, read the review from cash's post.

R

 

[unionblue]

Sounds like a good start for those critical of DiLorenzo's book. Not bothering to read the book comes across as a group of uninformed people wringing their hands over something they know nothing about other than someone has tarnished the halo of their anointed Lincoln.

It's not the book's advocates that are critical of the book or claiming to have facts refuting the contents.

Have you read his books?

I have.

Would you please quote from DiLorenzo's book, The Real Lincoln, and tell my why you think is accurate with in its pages?

I would like to compare notes and sources with you.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[KeyserSoze]

It would be difficult to have more errors than DiLorenzo. Although, I believe, most of his errors are those of incompetence rather than malice (in other words, he lets his ideology lead his research rather than the other way around).

R

You know how some people get scared by clowns as a kid and it warps them for life? I think DiLorenzo got scared by a Lincoln re-enactor.

 

[rpkennedy]

You know how some people get scared by clowns as a kid and it warps them for life? I think DiLorenzo got scared by a Lincoln re-enactor.

As someone who hates clowns, I found that hysterical.

R

 

[jgoodguy]

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln

Cynics learn through harsh experience to be skeptical of any book promising the "real" history behind a controversial figure such as Abraham Lincoln. It hardly seems possible that there is more to say about someone who has been subjected to such minute scrutiny in thousands of books and articles. In doing so, DiLorenzo does not follow the lead of M. E. Bradford or other Southern agrarians. He writes primarily not as a defender of the Old South and its institutions, culture, and traditions, but as a libertarian enemy of the Leviathan state. DiLorenzo holds Lincoln and his war responsible for the triumph of big government and the birth of the ubiquitous, suffocating modern U.S. state. He seeks to replace the nation's memory of Lincoln as the "Great Emancipator" with the record of Lincoln as the "Great Centralizer."

DiLorenzo is not a fellow traveler to a Southern Traditionalist, but as an enemy of the enemy type of friend.

Despite its provocative insights and obvious rhetorical skill, however, The Real Lincoln is seriously compromised by careless errors of fact, misuse of sources, and faulty documentation. Although individually these flaws may seem trivial and inconsequential, taken together they constitute a near-fatal threat to DiLorenzo's credibility as a historian. A few examples indicate the scope of the problem: DiLorenzo's own article on Lincoln as "The Great Centralizer" appeared in the The Independent Review in 1998, not in 1988 (p. vii); Lincoln advised sending freed slaves to Liberia in a speech in 1854, not "during the war" (pp. 16–17); Lincoln was not a member of the Illinois state legislature in 1857 (p. 18); the commerce clause was not an "amendment," and Thomas Jefferson was not among the framers of the Constitution (pp. 69–70); Thaddeus Stevens was a Pennsylvania representative, not a senator (p. 140); and Fort Sumter was not a customs house (p. 242).

When someone is trying to convince folks of a off the wall, out of the mainstream, minority view point, it is very careless to allow stupid self forced errors into their evidence. It is quite commonly found in authors speaking/writing to an audience that needs no convincing. In short this is not a work intended for the general audience but an established clientele.

For those familiar only with the deified Lincoln of the copper penny, the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., or the portrait on the classroom wall, DiLorenzo's catalog of Lincoln's racial views, for example, will come as something of a shock. The Real Lincoln ventures to cure the selective amnesia Lincoln's defenders have promoted.

A problem is finding such folks that have the desired opinion. Otherwise it like claiming a straw dummy says things it does not and then claiming victory when refuting what it supposedly said.

This is not a site sympathetic to Lincoln.

As it stands, The Real Lincoln is a travesty of historical method and documentation. Exasperating, maddening, and deeply disappointing, The Real Lincoln ought to have been a book to confound Lincoln's apologists and to help rebuild the American historical consciousness. Ironically, it is essentially correct in every charge it makes against Lincoln, making it all the more frustrating to the sympathetic reader. DiLorenzo's love of the chase needs to be tempered by scrupulous attention to detail. Without it, his good work collapses. He is an author of evident courage and ability, but his sloppiness has earned him the abuse and ridicule of his critics. A book such as The Real Lincoln needed to be written, but until it is revised and corrected in a new edition, this is not that book. In the meantime, there is still hope for skeptical cynics.

When the true believers come looking for a Moses to lead them to evidence that confirms their belief, DiLorenzo fails them.

In short when both your opponents and nominal allies are against you, it is bad.

Edited grammar

 

[Freddy]

No they weren't, read my previous post on this thread and you'll see a source showing your error. You're trying to paint with too wide of a brush. There were rice planters that didn't want any more slaves for varying reasons. There were several abolitionist leaning families, one that comes to mind quickly is Grimke.

Sarah and Angelina Grimke were sisters who came from a wealthy slave holding family in South Carolina. Sarah hated slavery and moved north, converted to Quakerism and became an outcast by her own family because of her dislike of the institution of slavery. Angelina eleven years younger joined her sister eight years later. Both sisters were involved in the women's rights movement. The Grimke family remained slave holders in South Carolina. There is no mention of the sisters returning to South Carolina even after the war.