The Imaginary Abe Lincoln

[KeyserSoze]

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."

Then shortly after that they fell positively in love with the institution.

 

[CSA Today]

Then shortly after that they fell positively in love with the institution.

An even bigger "crock".

 

[OpnCoronet]

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.

What facts, exactly, do you want explained to you?

 

[KeyserSoze]

An even bigger "crock".

Was it now? The presence of four hundred thousand slaves in the state would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[dvrmte]

Then shortly after that they fell positively in love with the institution.

The ban on the slave trade stayed in effect until 1803, if you call that "shortly after".

 

[jgoodguy]

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.

Personally in my decades long journey in online debating, I loved that kind of individual as you describe Lincoln devotees. They provided a wonderful foil for presenting contrary facts rather like the straight man in a comedy duo. Expecting them to come up with facts against themselves was futile, but search engines an a reasonable memory and debating ability was my friend. Had one forum owner that was an retired English Teacher who hated Southerners. When he complained about my grammar I apologized for speaking in Low Southern English while he only understood High Yankee. Being pompous and used to treating everyone like a Freshman English student, it chaffed him no end. He complained about my debating skills and I said that my College Philosophy professor preferred holding classes in a local strip club and after the scandal I was forbidden to practice Philosophy in Alabama. I disarmed him of his rhetorical weapons with humor. I picked my battles carefully and I'd beat him like a rug on facts and argument.

The short thing is that it was my responsibility to beat the fellow, not his.

 

[jgoodguy]

KeyserSoze said: ↑

Then shortly after that they fell positively in love with the institution.​

The ban on the slave trade stayed in effect until 1803, if you call that "shortly after".

The external slave trade was controlled by the British, so buying slaves was contrary to the Revolution so it disappeared in the main until after the Revolution. Inertia, politics and patriotism kept it suppressed until King Cotton ascended his throne when it opened briefly until the 1808 statues against it. By the time of the ACW too many folks had too much invested in existing slaves to risk a decline in values by reopening.

 

[KeyserSoze]

The ban on the slave trade stayed in effect until 1803, if you call that "shortly after".

Enough in love that they had more slaves than free people by 1860. Enough in love that they rebelled rather than face any restrictions on where they could take their slaves. I know old married couples that love each other less than that.

And let's not pretend that South Carolina placed restrictions on slave imports out of any sort of altruistic sentiments. They called a halt after a slave revolt in 1739. The later relaxed the ban, but tried to enact it again after other slave revolts. By the time Whitney's cotton gin made slavery all the more profitable, South Carolina lost all opposition to slavery at all. They just made sure that the law kept a lid on things.

 

[CSA Today]

What facts, exactly, do you want explained to you?

Any criticism of Abraham Lincoln, on this forum, is usually quickly followed by vague statements of "not supported by the facts. I am especially interested in post #195 of this thread where the writer wrote: "Are you up to taking a criticism and showing where it is not supported by facts."Since he posed the question to me, it would be nice to know what he is talking about before saying whether I agreed or disagreed with those "facts."

"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

 

[jgoodguy]

Any criticism of Abraham Lincoln, on this forum, is usually quickly followed by vague statements of "not supported by the facts. I am especially interested in post #195 of this thread where the writer wrote: "Are you up to taking a criticism and showing where it is not supported by facts."Since he posed the question to me, it would be nice to know what he is talking about before saying whether I agreed or disagreed with those "facts."

1. Asking for facts for criticism does not require research or facts by the requesting part. It is the burden of the person posting the criticism to provide the evidence.
2. Unless accompanied by evidence or evidence and argumentation, criticism is just comment.

 

[dvrmte]

Enough in love that they had more slaves than free people by 1860. Enough in love that they rebelled rather than face any restrictions on where they could take their slaves. I know old married couples that love each other less than that.

And let's not pretend that South Carolina placed restrictions on slave imports out of any sort of altruistic sentiments. They called a halt after a slave revolt in 1739. The later relaxed the ban, but tried to enact it again after other slave revolts. By the time Whitney's cotton gin made slavery all the more profitable, South Carolina lost all opposition to slavery at all. They just made sure that the law kept a lid on things.

Almost every year from 1708 until 1860, slaves were a clear majority in South Carolina. Who are you arguing with and who's pretending? I've posted facts regarding the slave trade in South Carolina, without any hyperbole. I don't think anyone has made an argument that they had much opposition to slavery, just the slave trade. Many South Carolinians voiced moral objections to the slave trade.

 

[CSA Today]

1. Asking for facts for criticism does not require research or facts by the requesting part. It is the burden of the person posting the criticism to provide the evidence.
2. Unless accompanied by evidence or evidence and argumentation, criticism is just comment.

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

 

[jgoodguy]

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

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.

 

[CSA Today]

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.

Seems like a convoluted argument to me. DiLorenzo advocates would likely recommend reading his book for the facts while; conversely, those who disagree with the book's conclusions would be anxious to come forth with their "facts" [if they indeed have any] to refute DiLorenzo's views.

"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

 

[KeyserSoze]

Any criticism of Abraham Lincoln, on this forum, is usually quickly followed by vague statements of "not supported by the facts.

Usually it isn't. Or the facts offered don't fit the situation. Or it's so extremely hypocritical as to border on ridiculous.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Almost every year from 1708 until 1860, slaves were a clear majority in South Carolina. Who are you arguing with and who's pretending? I've posted facts regarding the slave trade in South Carolina, without any hyperbole. I don't think anyone has made an argument that they had much opposition to slavery, just the slave trade. Many South Carolinians voiced moral objections to the slave trade.

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.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Seems like a convoluted argument to me. DiLorenzo advocates would likely recommend reading his book for the facts...

If they find any be sure and let us know.

 

[jgoodguy]

Seems like a convoluted argument to me. DiLorenzo advocates would likely recommend reading his book for the facts while; conversely, those who disagree with the book's conclusions would be anxious to come forth with their "facts" [if they indeed have any] to refute DiLorenzo's views.

"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

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.

 

[ole]

Sometime back in this thread, someone posted an article critical of DiLorenzo. Did anyone read it?

 

[rpkennedy]

Sometime back in this thread, someone posted an article critical of DiLorenzo. Did anyone read it?

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

R