The Imaginary Abe Lincoln

[johan_steele]

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

No, in the case of DiLorenzo & his advocate it's both malice and incompetence.

 

[dvrmte]

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.

I'll just use Wiki this time, the last time I posted about this I used a better source. Who'd think a wealthy rice planter, owning large numbers of slaves, could also have some abolitionist views? Most people have difficulty with the idea that slave owners were individuals, just like you and I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Faucheraud_Grimké

The couple maintained a large slave population at their rice plantations, yet it is also clear from the record that, as early as the 1780s, Grimké held abolitionist views on ending slavery. He wrote about the draconian slave codes created after the Stono Rebellion (1739), a riot that his uncle Frederick Grimké (d. 1778) used his slaves to help put down.

 

[rpkennedy]

No, in the case of DiLorenzo & his advocate it's both malice and incompetence.

I don't see it so much as malice as massaging the sources to support their ideology (something which is wrong in and of itself). Unfortunately, the source material is far too well known for him to get away with it, especially considering the fact that he gets simple facts wrong.

As another posted pointed out, his works are written for a niche audience that wants their ideas confirmed, regardless of accuracy.

R

 

[Freddy]

I'll just use Wiki this time, the last time I posted about this I used a better source. Who'd think a wealthy rice planter, owning large numbers of slaves, could also have some abolitionist views? Most people have difficulty with the idea that slave owners were individuals, just like you and I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Faucheraud_Grimké

There is no footnote for that claim.

 

[johan_steele]

I don't see it so much as malice as massaging the sources to support their ideology (something which is wrong in and of itself). Unfortunately, the source material is far too well known for him to get away with it, especially considering the fact that he gets simple facts wrong.

As another posted pointed out, his works are written for a niche audience that wants their ideas confirmed, regardless of accuracy.

R

Knowingly "editing" a source to change its intent fits malice in my eyes. the incompetence is doing such a poor job at it that it's easily identifiable to anyone who can read or do their own research. There are too many who just want to be spoon fed what they want to believe... those are his cheer squad, proponents & outright worshippers of the man.

 

[CSA Today]

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,

You know I've read the book, we've had this conversation before on another forum as I'm sure you remember. I don't own the book but will get a copy as soon as possible. The last time I borrowed the book from a friend and will probably do so again. It will be good to resume the discourse with someone who has actually read the book. I'll be getting back to you soon.

"The history of the United States should be written by a Northerner and "from the Northern point of view...because the Northern point of view is, in the main, the correct view," and that, while sincerity must be allowed the Southern people and their leaders, "not one scintilla of justification for secession and rebellion must be expected. The South must acknowledge its error as well as its defeat."
John W. Burgess, Dean of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, 1897."

 

[jgoodguy]

Right wing puff piece.

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War

DiLorenzo's analysis of Lincoln, accompanied by copious historical documentation, shatters the mythology surrounding the 16th President's motives and agenda in pursuing the War Between The States. The author provides convincing evidence for Lincoln's overt racism as expressed in his documented views on racial supremacy as manifested in his desire to colonize all American blacks outside the continental United States (p. 4); that Lincoln's views were matched by a palpable majority in the North who utilized such tools as state constitutional amendments to prohibit the emigration of black people into Northern states like the President's home state of Illinois (p. 4); and that Lincoln's war which killed 620,000 Americans [equivalent to 5 million deaths in 2002 population numbers and percentages] and destroyed 40 percent of the American economy, was a singularly terrible, unjustified conflict given the proven success in the 19th century of the peaceful end to slavery through the policy of compensated emancipation (p. 4). DiLorenzo duly notes that, "Between 1800 and 1860, dozens of countries, including the entire British Empire, ended slavery peacefully; only in the United States was a war involved (p. 4)."

Only in the U.S did the slave owners start a war to preserve slavery rather than a policy of compensated emancipation.

. . .the War Between the States so fundamentally transformed the nature of American government. Before the war, government in America was the highly decentralized, limited government established by the founding fathers. The war created the highly centralized state that Americans labor under today. The purpose of American government was transformed from the defense of individual liberty to the quest for empire. . . . Lincoln thought of himself as the heir to the Hamiltonian political tradition, which sought a much more centralized governmental system, one that would plan economic development with corporate subsidies financed by protectionist tariffs and the printing of money by the central government. . . . It was Lincoln's real agenda. . . . Henry Clay's "American System." For his entire political life Lincoln was devoted to Clay and Clay's economic agenda. The debate over this economic agenda was arguably the most important political debate during the first seventy years of the nation's existence. It involved the nation's most prominent statesmen and pitted the states' rights Jeffersonians against the centralizing Hamiltonians (who became Whigs and, later, Republicans). The violence of war finally ended the debate in 1861. . . . A war was not necessary to free the slaves, but it was necessary to destroy the most significant check on the powers of the central government: the right of secession. (Introduction)

Big Government is evil. Lincoln created Big Government(ignoring the great depression, WWI and I, several problems such as health and safety ect. ) So Lincoln is evil. Simple. Lincoln destroyed the right of secession. That the right never existed does not seem important. The war was started not by the Union but the CSA. The initial purpose of the was to end an insurrection. Lots of misdirection and wishful thinking in this paragraph.

Chapter 5 demonstrates that this right of secession was rooted in the proper understanding of the Declaration of Independence as a "Declaration of Secession" from England, with the New England Federalists attempting to secede from the Union after Jefferson's election in 1800, for more than a decade. DiLorenzo documents the pre-1861 assumption of most commentators in both North and South that states had the inherent right to secede from the Union as a last check on the excesses of an arbitrary, centralized Federal government, buttressing his case with telling quotations from Jefferson, John Quincy Adams (a Unionist), de Tocqueville, and even Alexander Hamilton. It was Lincoln, however, who invented the preposterous theory that the Federal government created the states, which were therefore not sovereign entities, subsequently waging a war to establish his deliberate inversion of the Constitutional intent of the founders. The Federal government became by force of the sword an involuntary Union, "the master, rather than the servant, of the people–especially once it imposed military conscription and income taxation on the population (p. 264)." Thus, the "American System" of Henry Clay began its implementation in earnest with Abraham Lincoln, creating a Leviathan Central State of oppressive taxation and regulation at home, and imperialistic expansion abroad, that has been unchecked ever since.

Lots of opinions, no evidence.

Finally, the informed reader of The Real Lincoln will be duly impressed with the ominous parallels between the Republican 16th President and the Republican 43rd Chief Executive of the United States. It is George W. Bush who has gone beyond Lincoln's national centralized banking in facilitating globalist financial structures like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, The North American Free Trade Agreement the World Trade Organization, GATT, and the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (managed trade, not free trade). It is Mr. Bush who has increased Federal spending beyond that of his predecessor for a variety of agencies, including new monies for the Federal Department of Education. It is Mr. Bush who has prosecuted an offensive war against a foreign power without the necessary consent and authorization of Congress according to Article 1, Section 8. Similarly, it is Mr. Bush whose Administration seeks, through the USA Patriot Act and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (DSEA), the broadest authority ever given the Executive Branch of the Federal government to conduct warrantless searches and seizures of homes and businesses; to hold citizen suspects in custody without legal representation for unspecified periods of time; and to pursue the broadest expansion of electronic surveillance operations in the history of the United States. And where 19th century British mercantilism is concerned, Murray Rothbard's textbook definition of it as government's special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state, must be applied in spades to the monarchial reign of King George W. Bush and his cabal of advisers influenced by international bankers, oil and natural gas consortiums, insurance and media conglomerates, and the much vaunted Israeli Lobby. The 19th century Credit Mobilier and Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroads are now the domain of UNOCAL; Halliburton Oil; Kellogg, Brown, and Root; Trieme Partners; Exxon/Mobil; Chevron; Paladin Capital; the Carlyle Group; and the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC). And in this merger of the denizens of the Central State with multinational economic conglomerates and globalist structures of impending World Government, the American military in most Lincolnesque fashion now serves as the janissaries of coercive interests totally at odds with historic American Federalism and those the latter was designed to protect.

Simple rant.

Quite disappointing review.

 

[jgoodguy]

Unionblue,

You know I've read the book, we've had this conversation before on another forum as I'm sure you remember. I don't own the book but will get a copy as soon as possible. The last time I borrowed the book from a friend and will probably do so again. It will be good to resume the discourse with someone who has actually read the book. I'll be getting back to you soon.

"The history of the United States should be written by a Northerner and "from the Northern point of view...because the Northern point of view is, in the main, the correct view," and that, while sincerity must be allowed the Southern people and their leaders, "not one scintilla of justification for secession and rebellion must be expected. The South must acknowledge its error as well as its defeat."
John W. Burgess, Dean of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, 1897."

Just in case you want to buy it 36 new from $7.74 51 used from $4.01. Looks like under $10 for the used one including shipping.

 

[rpkennedy]

Right wing puff piece.

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War



Only in the U.S did the slave owners start a war to preserve slavery rather than a policy of compensated emancipation.



Big Government is evil. Lincoln created Big Government(ignoring the great depression, WWI and I, several problems such as health and safety ect. ) So Lincoln is evil. Simple. Lincoln destroyed the right of secession. That the right never existed does not seem important. The war was started not by the Union but the CSA. The initial purpose of the was to end an insurrection. Lots of misdirection and wishful thinking in this paragraph.


Lots of opinions, no evidence.


Simple rant.

Quite disappointing review.

Wow. I think that this is the type of person that DiLorenzo is writing for. Someone who doesn't need facts when they have their opinion to rely on.

R

 

[unionblue]

Unionblue,

You know I've read the book, we've had this conversation before on another forum as I'm sure you remember. I don't own the book but will get a copy as soon as possible. The last time I borrowed the book from a friend and will probably do so again. It will be good to resume the discourse with someone who has actually read the book. I'll be getting back to you soon.

CSA Today,

Appreciate it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

Just in case you want to buy it 36 new from $7.74 51 used from $4.01. Looks like under $10 for the used one including shipping.

jgoodguy,

I would hate to see anyone waste their money on this book. My advice, check it out from your local public library.

Unionblue

 

[jgoodguy]

jgoodguy said: ↑

Just in case you want to buy it 36 new from $7.74 51 used from $4.01. Looks like under $10 for the used one including shipping.​

jgoodguy,

I would hate to see anyone waste their money on this book. My advice, check it out from your local public library.

Unionblue

If I was personally serious about the book, I'd get the Kindle version so I could cut and paste for reviewing. $6.00 online.

 

[ole]

Have to admit, I've not read it. After reading excerpts and reviews, I just couldn't buy it. There is a benefit of being a member of this board. Did buy "The South was Right." Read about a quarter of it and sent it to someone else who also read about a quarter of it. She has my permission to trash it.

 

[Potomac Pride]

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.

Yes, in addition to being a college professor, DiLorenzo is also a member of the Mises Institute which is an independent research center and think tank for political theory and economics. However, the institute does not attempt to implement public policy and has no formal affiliation with any political party. The scholars at the Mises Institute have published numerous books and articles on economic history and political economy. Some of their research takes a critical view of government activities throughout the course of US history.

 

[R. Evans]

Have to admit, I've not read it. After reading excerpts and reviews, I just couldn't buy it. There is a benefit of being a member of this board. Did buy "The South was Right." Read about a quarter of it and sent it to someone else who also read about a quarter of it. She has my permission to trash it.

Same here. After all I've heard about the book in question and The South Was Right, I'll skip them.

 

[JerseyBart]

The "Real...Imaginary" Abe Lincoln

 

[ForeverFree]

Have to admit, I've not read it. After reading excerpts and reviews, I just couldn't buy it. There is a benefit of being a member of this board. Did buy "The South was Right." Read about a quarter of it and sent it to someone else who also read about a quarter of it. She has my permission to trash it.

I bought "The South was Right" too. What was I thinking? I'm too embarrassed to give it to anybody else. Maybe I'll just trash my copy too.

- Alan

 

[unionblue]

Yes, in addition to being a college professor, DiLorenzo is also a member of the Mises Institute which is an independent research center and think tank for political theory and economics. However, the institute does not attempt to implement public policy and has no formal affiliation with any political party. The scholars at the Mises Institute have published numerous books and articles on economic history and political economy. Some of their research takes a critical view of government activities throughout the course of US history.

Potomac Pride,

Yes, I have seen this public relations blurb time and again and now I have seen you repeat it again.

My question is, so?

How does this PR para equate to DiLorenzo being a worth-while Civil War scholar?

Unionblue

 

[jgoodguy]

Potomac Pride,

Yes, I have seen this public relations blurb time and again and now I have seen you repeat it again.

My question is, so?

How does this PR para equate to DiLorenzo being a worth-while Civil War scholar?

Unionblue

Mises Institution has some interesting observations.

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Institute scholars have been highly critical of Abraham Lincoln's conduct of the American Civil War (e.g. suspending habeas corpus), asserting that his policies contributed to the growth of statism in the United States. Senior faculty member Thomas DiLorenzo, in his critical biographies The Real Lincoln and Lincoln: Unmasked, argues that the sixteenth president substantially expanded the size and powers of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty. Adjunct faculty member Donald Livingston shares a similar view, blaming Lincoln for the creation of "a French Revolutionary style unitary state" and "centralizing totalitarianism."[29] Institute scholars have also taken a more general anti-war stance. Many works espousing a general anti-war view such as John Denson's A Century of War and H.C. Engelbrecht's The Merchants of Death can be found on the institute's website and purchased through its bookstore.
The Institute's publications argue that fascism and National Socialism (Nazism) are branches of socialist political philosophy. They assert that these ideologies are based on collectivist rejections of the individual in favor of some "greater good", and that they incorporate central control over the economy and often also society. This line of argument is discussed in more detail at Fascism and ideology.
Institute scholars are often opposed to democracy, described by Institute Fellow Hans-Hermann Hoppe as Democracy: The God That Failed. James Ostrowski describes the system as follows:[30]

Not to be confused with a republic, a democracy is a system in which, theoretically, what the majority says goes. The reality, however, is more complex and much uglier. In a democracy, various political elites struggle for control of the state apparatus by appealing to the material interests of large voting blocks with promises of legalized graft.​

Institute scholars disagree on the subject of immigration.[31] Walter Block argues in favor of open borders.[32] Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues that in a stateless society individuals would only be able to travel with permission of individual land owners.[33]

edit
Ludwig von Mises Institute

Political positions

The Institute is against statism, socialism, communism, left-liberalism, and pretty much anything else that deviates from libertarianism, which is hardly surprising, since their founders were libertarians. It publishes articles from a libertarian viewpoint, and supports the Austrian School. The Institute leans toward anarcho-capitalism and tends to view more soft-line libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute with some disdain as compromising Beltway insiders.
The Institute supports a non-interventionist foreign policy that includes a retrospective opposition to America's involvement in World War II. They harken back to paleoconservative isolationist stances, feeling that unless or until the US is directly attacked they should be neutral.
Due to its Austrian position, the Institute is naturally a font of gold bug

anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy which combines elements of anarchism and capitalism. From anarchism, it borrows the concept of elimination of the state, and from capitalism it borrows the concepts of the free market and private property. While libertarians advocate minimizing the state, anarcho-capitalists advocate the complete elimination of the state. Anarcho-capitalists believe the institution of state is antithetical to capitalism.
Anarcho-capitalists believe that compulsory taxation is a violation of individual liberty. Thus they oppose compulsory taxation and believe law enforcement, courts, and all security services should be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors, such as private defense agencies.