Loyola economics professor Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, with whom Eric and I talked for over an hour in a previous episode of ECOMINOES Radio (full list of show archives here), has written much about Lincoln in addition to this economic writings. Through years of academic research, Dr. DiLorenzo has found that Lincoln wasn't the noble man history has portrayed him to be. According to the professor, Lincoln was actually a bigot and crony capitalist who was unpopular in both northern and southern states. (The history of the Pledge of Allegiance has been similarly whitewashed.)Naturally, Dr. DiLorenzo has been highly critical of Hollywood's most recent whitewashed treatment of "Honest Abe". Speaking at a recent Campaign for Liberty event, he had this to say:
Part 1 of 3:
Part 2 of 3:
Part 3 of 3:
Thomas Dilorenzo your an idiot your atempt to disown slavery and racism,is racist let alone one of the most stupid arguments against the reality if American History and the shame of racist is shame full, thank God ,you are not GOD!!!!
ReplyDelete1) Your writing is so bad that I honestly can't understand what you're saying. 2) Dr. Dilorenzo has never "disowned" slavery or racism. Thank you for reading.
DeleteJust read the book. Dilorenzo's account is actually well researched. Are you more interested in the "truth" or the "myth"?
DeleteYou apparently are interested in the "myth."
DeletePerhaps if Anonymous could get past the ad hominems, the invectives, and comma splices, I would recommend Stephen Mansfield’s Lincoln's Battle with God: A President's Struggle with Faith and What It Meant for America as a study in parallel with professor DiLorenzo’s book.
ReplyDeleteLincoln was not a perfect man; nothing human is ever perfect. All humans suffer with the same dilemma: we know the things we should do but don’t do them; there are things we shouldn’t do but somehow we find ourselves doing them.
Before seeing any movie on a historical character, movie goers should do their own background reading from differing points of view.
Does it add to the analysis, or to the conversation, to explicitly invoke God and then use adjectives like “idiot,” “stupid,” or “racist?” Isn’t that a rather censorious judgement?
Twitter: @Zinovyroark
Facebook: Zinovy Roark
I think Mr. Di Lorenzo's approach is intriguing but rather incorrect. Similar to Dan Brown in "Da Vinci's Code", I don't think Lincoln was a racist, indeed he wasn't a perfect man by any means, and the movie somehow reflects it. I don't think centuries of historians would be all of the sudden way wrong, on a person who is remembered as one of the best presidents not only in USA history but worldwide.
ReplyDeleteIn his First Inaugural Address Lincoln said that he had no objection to the Corwin Amendment which would have allowed the south to keep slaves for all time. He also promised to continue to return runaway slaves to their southern masters. Lincoln was not concerned with slavery but with government revenues which flowed from tariffs collected in southern ports. Lincoln said that if the south would not except those terms and continue to pay taxes that he'd start a war. It's a short speech. Read it.
ReplyDelete"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." -- Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
Darren
You are aware that Lincoln was trying to avoid civil war at that time, right? In fact, as you have read the address, you should be obviously aware that was the ENTIRE purpose of the address.
DeleteLincoln had stated MANY times that he opposed slavery. That it was a great wrong.
Saying Lincoln was not concerned about slavery makes you an idiot. Read some books.
Perhaps you spend too much time reading Lincoln hagiographies (or watching their cinematic equivalents) to be able to understand the plain English spoken by Lincoln himself. Lincoln stated his reasons for starting the war quite clearly.
Delete"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." -- Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
In the same speech he asserts that slavery is not the cause of the war.
"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." -- Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
Please explain why you believe that quoting Lincoln's own words makes me an idiot.
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
Everybody was "racist" in the 1860's. Lincoln said he was in favor of the white race remaining in the superior position. Was that racist? By today's standards yes. In 1860 he was simply articulating a preference for his own race. You decide.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that those who did not want to prohibit free blacks from living in the north or those who operated the underground railroad were just as racist as Abraham Lincoln who did vote to keep free blacks out of Illinois and who promised to return runaway slaves to their masters? If so, you lack any sense of proportion or appreciation for actual history.
DeleteMoron, Lincoln promised to return the slaves to their masters because it was the LAW OF THE LAND at the time! And he had just been elected chief executor of said land. Get it?
DeleteLincoln voted to keep free blacks out of Illinois. Where did you get this nonsense?
So, you read one non-historical book whose purpose is to be controversial to sell copies and now you are an expert?
No, you are obviously a moron. I hate to break it to you. Read some Shelby Foote, who was a southerner, sometime. Or Bruce Catton. Those two are the foremost Civil War historians by the way. OR some Stephen B. Oates. OR some Frederick Douglass. Hey! There's an idea! Or heck, about 100 other historians.
Shawn asked "Lincoln voted to keep free blacks out of Illinois. Where did you get this nonsense?"
DeleteFrom history, Shawn. Guess you're not reading enough American American historians.
As a member of the Illinois legislature Lincoln urged the legislature "to appropriate money for colonization in order to remove Negroes from the state and prevent miscegenation" (Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’ s White Dream, p. 228).
Lerone Bennett, Jr. (born 17 October 1928) is an African-American scholar, author and social historian, known for his analysis of race relations in the United States. His best-known works include Before the Mayflower and Forced into Glory.
The only way Lincoln could win the war was to have blacks fight for the North. In exchange he said you'll be free if you fight. North would have lost otherwise. So he was looking out for "the nation" and didn't want to concede the South and split the country. So, was he racist? Maybe. But he was trying to save a nation and that was the best option.
ReplyDelete"Not the same anonymous as above"
This is really simple, people.
ReplyDeleteThere have been more books written about Abraham Lincoln than any other American.
Now, it is inevitable that in the race to sell copies, some authors, not even "historians" by the way, attempt to present a controversial, and inaccurate, picture of Lincoln. Not for the purpose of rewriting history. No, since 100 historians have already confirmed that. But for the purpose of SELLING BOOKS.
Thomas DiLorenzo is one of these.
Like a few others (cough, Leroy Bennett), DiLorenzo would have you believe that the many historians before him got it wrong. Or they INTENTIONALLY wanted to get it wrong. Of course. Because we all know historians are about creating myths and not fact-based histories.
Heck, even the people who knew Lincoln and were ALIVE back then and wrote about it were apparently wrong, DiLorenzo would have you believe.
Never mind that Lincoln stated many times, as documented in his speeches, that slavery was wrong, was evil, was an injustice. No, never mind all that. We are still to believe that Lincoln freed the slaves and had the 13th amendment passed, and pushed for black voting rights, ALL because of OTHER motivations, and NOT because he was against slavery.
Hey, it worked at least on some small scale, as some morons like Darren have already proven.
Shawn, in his First Inaugural Address Lincoln said of southern race slavery, "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." He also said, "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."
DeleteAnd yet you insist that "he was against slavery" and that anyone who can see the plain evidence that he was not is a "moron." Why do you believe that your imagination trumps Lincoln's own words?
I listened to this loser for 5 minutes and had to stop. Anyone who would say you should read Lerone Bennett's book about Lincoln has ZERO credibility.
ReplyDeleteThat is like saying you should read Glenn Beck's book about Barrack Obama. Both would be equally interested in the actual facts.
It is a damn shame that guys like this are given a pulpit. Everyone he just talked to just got more ignorant.
Yes, Shawn. Idiots are those who make their case by citing Lincoln's own words and actions. Smart people don't need to be bothered with proper documentation as simply calling those with whom they disagree "morons" and "idiots" gets the job done. It's all rather erudite of you. Bet you graduated summa cum laude ad hominem.
DeleteDarren, "summa cum laude"- yes, actually I did.
ReplyDeleteI don't normally argue by calling people morons, as that is typically going to elicit a visceral reaction and not an intellectual one. However, this is not an argument. This is not two people with differing opinions. This is one person stating facts and the other talking nonsense. If I argued that the Earth was the center of the universe around which the sun orbited, would I be simply stating an opinion and therefore worthy of some respect, or would I simply be a moron?
Now you see my side of it.
Lerone Bennett had a specific bone to pick with Lincoln, besides wanting to write a controversial book. He is a MLK biographer and wanted to knock down Lincoln's image as the Great Emancipator and messiah of the black race. Of course, in Bennett's mind, that messiah would have to be black, and not white. Being white makes Abraham Lincoln a racist and evil.
I don't know a single historian that would take Bennett's work seriously.
You quote Lincoln, using only the specific speeches, delivered for political purpose, that suit your wrong-headed theory. You, of course, ignore the other thousand of speeches, given during Lincoln's 56 year life, in which he explained how much he hated slavery.
You want quotes from Lincoln? I could present a thousand, but I'll settle on this one- "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong."
Ironically, both Lerone Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo here cite David H Donald to add weight to their arguments. Yes, David H Donald IS the preeminent 20th century Lincoln scholar. It is ironic because Donald would agree with NOTHING either of those two hack authors have written.
I quote David H Donald when asked the 3 principles Abraham Lincoln believed in most- "The Union, freedom, and equality."
Read David H Donald's book- Lincoln, and get back to me. David H Donald was another southerner by the way, from Mississippi, like Shelby Foote.
Shawn said: "I don't normally argue by calling people morons..."
DeleteAnd yet you have used that tactic almost exclusively in this thread. For someone who claims to eschew the ad hominem attack you certainly take to it quite readily.
Shawn also said: "You quote Lincoln, using only the specific speeches, delivered for political purpose."
If you believe that Lincoln publicly lied about his positions in order to accrue more power unto himself then why would you believe anything he ever said or expect that he had any motivation other than naked ambition?
Shawn also said: "I quote David H Donald when asked the 3 principles Abraham Lincoln believed in most- "The Union, freedom, and equality."
How much freedom and equality did the 600,000 plus souls killed in Lincoln's war enjoy? Every other nation on Earth ended the institution of slavery peacefully. It took Lincoln to turn brother against brother on the field of battle and only incidentally free some slaves (not all) in his quest to maintain an economic stranglehold on the south just as he stated in his First Inaugural address.
You've descended into rhetoric bordering on outright propaganda.
DeleteFirst let me say that after reading down the posts between Shawn and Darren, I thought I was watching an episode of Psych with an argument between Shawn and Gus. (I say that with great warmth and a smile.) Having followed the arguments, I find that Shawn has a little better grasp of the cultural thoughts of that time. We today tend to think of slavery and racism together. Some folks of that time thought the same, but many many broke slavery and race into two separate topics; which is why Shawn has a better grasp. Darren your points are valid but taken out of the context of the time.
DeleteFor many well intentioned folks (not at all racist in the way we think of racism), at that time, there was a very serious discussion of giving the Negro population there own land; state, country, whatever you want to call it. The plan was being seriously discussed at the highest levels of government. Lincoln knew all about it. And as Shawn has pointed out, he was also caught in the whole web of politics, and how to hold the country together, particularly because many OTHER FACTORS had led up to the line drawn in the sand for the Civil War.
Now, Stevie Spielberg likes to make movies a certain way, particularly when the content moves folks to think and feel a particular way. Whether good or bad, that is what movie making is all about: manipulating the audience. Also, his "Lincoln" is based on a book written with a particular perspective, as was Amistad, as was Saving Private Ryan, as was the John Adams mini-series that Tom Hanks produced... etc. and etc.
Lincoln wasn't perfect. I like Lincoln, but his administration did some things with which I totally disagree. But he was in no way a "white supremacist." To say or infer that he was is insane. We absolutely know that he was opposed to slavery. Did he think that whites were superior to blacks? Maybe, simply because it was a very popular (even "scientific")thought at that time, and therefore, one that he may have considered, as any of us might in the normal course of trying to think through the issue. I would like to think I wouldn't had I been living at that time, but I can't say for sure.
Look at ANY area of the US today and you will find communities of folks from various ethnic and racial backgrounds. They do not hate everybody else, they just want to be with folks of their own ethnic background and culture. Do they allow inner-marriage? Often, no. Some ethnic lines are doing everything possible to keep their ethnic lines pure, or to put it another way, to keep their ethnic line ALIVE. They do not hate or devalue anyone else, they are just trying to keep their ethnic identity. Can that turn to racist intent? History says... Yes.
I am not speaking off-handedly. I wrote the book The Freedom Driven Life: The Case for Freedom. My research is solid.
I fail to understand how Lincoln's stated belief that the South should be permitted to keep slaves in perpetuity equates with his being opposed to slavery. There is not a single offense committed in today's world which I would seek to defend forever through a constitutional amendment. Think about that. Could one oppose rape, for example, and at the same time assert that the rapist's right to continue such crimes in perpetuity should be added to the Constitution? It's disingenuous to say that such an obvious contradiction would be merely a reflection of one's time.
DeleteAmericans would be better informed if they accepted once and for all that Washington did not cut down a cherry tree, Betsy Ross did not design the stars and stripes and Lincoln had no love blacks folks.
Darren is right. Lincoln was a crony capitalist and master politician (i.e., lying scum) who wanted to prohibit the southern states from leaving the Union. That was his main objective. He may have disliked slavery, but he clearly considered blacks inferior to whites and his overarching purpose was to "save the Union" -- and to continue bleeding the south dry economically while protecting northern interests. At *best*, Lincoln supporters could say he had a bug up his ass about saving the Union, and that was a noble goal. IMHO, however, he may have saved the Union geographically, but he destroyed it philosophically, along with a terrible cost in lives. The worst president we ever had.
ReplyDelete