PDA

View Full Version : "The Real Lincoln" According to National Geographic Channel



Blockade Runner
09-09-2009, 02:46 PM
This past weekend I had the "opportunity" to view the "The Real Abraham Lincoln" on the National Geographic Channel (NGC). I found the program to be a one sided, stilted, and biased portrayl of our nation's 16th president. Like many other similar portrayls of Lincoln, the program attempted to explain the War Between the States as merely a war to abolish slavery, emphasizing Lincoln's role in that effort. While the program referred glowingly to the Emancipation Proclamation, it should be noted that the Emancipation Proclamation did not effect slave status in the border states, nor should it have effected slaves in the South, given that Lincoln had no jurisdictional power over the Confederacy. Many historians additionally believe that Lincoln's motivation for advancing the Emancipation Proclamation was to promote slave insurrection in the South, where most of the able bodied males were off at war. Thankfully, that did not occur.

The program was effusive in its Lincoln quotations regarding black equallity. What it conveniently neglected to mention were some of Lincoln's more notorious quotes that prove him to be the consumate politician, and less the egalitarian. For instance..."I have no purpose to introduce political or social equality between the white and negro race. There is a physical difference between the two which probably will forever forbid their living together on the same footing of equality. I as well as any other man, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary". There's also, "I am not in favor of making jurors of negroes, or qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people".

As for the impetus to initiate the conflict, Lincoln asserted, "We did not go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back; and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith".

Those aforementioned quotes conclusively prove Lincoln's motivation for war was not to free the slaves. Rather, his motivation came from his continued beief in high tariffs which disapportionally favored the North, and his Hamiltonian desire to create and maintain a strong central government. Sadly, none of these factors were ever broached in "The Real Lincoln".

"The Real Lincoln" provided a myopic view of a man who contributed to the demise of 600,000 of his fellow citizens. If indeed we accept the show's premise that the war was fought to end slavery, it should be noted that no where else in the western hemisphere where slavery existed, (with the exception of Haiti), was there a war begun to end the practice. Everywhere else slaveholders were financially renumerated for their slaves, and life went on.

NGC's foray into history should best be left to other networks. The truly saddest aspect of this program is that many viewers will take information stated in "The Real Lincoln" prima facie, electing not to pursue the truth through their own historical research. :(

5 th Alabama Infantry
09-09-2009, 03:11 PM
For a little balance, they should have probably given out free copies of Tom DiLorenzo's book , "The Real Lincoln" to all viewers.

sbl
09-09-2009, 05:40 PM
Somehow, Jefferson Davis is not on Mount Rushmore.

Malingerer
09-09-2009, 05:50 PM
In his own way, Davis freed a bunch of slaves too. He just didn't mean to.:D

Blockade Runner
09-10-2009, 08:20 AM
This past weekend I had the "opportunity" to view the "The Real Abraham Lincoln" on the National Geographic Channel (NGC). I found the program to be a one sided, stilted, and biased portrayl of our nation's 16th president. Like many other similar portrayls of Lincoln, the program attempted to explain the War Between the States as merely a war to abolish slavery, emphasizing Lincoln's role in that effort. While the program referred glowingly to the Emancipation Proclamation, it should be noted that the Emancipation Proclamation did not effect slave status in the border states, nor should it have effected slaves in the South, given that Lincoln had no jurisdictional power over the Confederacy. Many historians additionally believe that Lincoln's motivation for advancing the Emancipation Proclamation was to promote slave insurrection in the South, where most of the able bodied males were off at war. Thankfully, that did not occur.

The program was effusive in its Lincoln quotations regarding black equallity. What it conveniently neglected to mention were some of Lincoln's more notorious quotes that prove him to be the consumate politician, and less the egalitarian. For instance..."I have no purpose to introduce political or social equality between the white and negro race. There is a physical difference between the two which probably will forever forbid their living together on the same footing of equality. I as well as any other man, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary". There's also, "I am not in favor of making jurors of negroes, or qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people".

As for the impetus to initiate the conflict, Lincoln asserted, "We did not go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back; and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith".

Those aforementioned quotes conclusively prove Lincoln's motivation for war was not to free the slaves. Rather, his motivation came from his continued beief in high tariffs which disproportionally favored the North, and his Hamiltonian desire to create and maintain a strong central government. Sadly, none of these factors were ever broached in "The Real Lincoln".

"The Real Lincoln" provided a myopic view of a man who contributed to the demise of 600,000 of his fellow citizens. If indeed we accept the show's premise that the war was fought to end slavery, it should be noted that no where else in the western hemisphere where slavery existed, (with the exception of Haiti), was there a war begun to end the practice. Everywhere else slaveholders were financially renumerated for their slaves, and life went on.

NGC's foray into history should best be left to other networks. The truly saddest aspect of this program is that many viewers will take information stated in "The Real Lincoln" prima facie, electing not to pursue the truth through their own historical research. :(

"Disproportionally" in the 4th paragraph was misspelled. Sorry. No edit feature.

Pvt Schnapps
09-10-2009, 09:48 AM
In his own way, Davis freed a bunch of slaves too. He just didn't mean to.:D

So you're saying that, if Lincoln was "the Great Emancipator," Davis was "the Inept Enslaver"?

Malingerer
09-10-2009, 09:52 AM
So you're saying that, if Lincoln was "the Great Emancipator," Davis was "the Inept Enslaver"?

Schnapps - two names: Braxton Bragg and John Bell Hood. It's as though he secretly wanted to fail.

plankmaker
09-10-2009, 10:03 AM
This hasn't been posted in a while. Thought this would be a good place for it.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

Bad Civil War Generals


Nathaniel Banks: Beaten in more places by more Reb generals than anybody else. He made even the mediocre ones look good. The sad thing is that he was courageous and always tried hard. He never seemed to realize that he wasn't any good.


Braxton Bragg: Never met a man he didn't hate, or an opportunity he couldn't fritter away. The first American officer known to be the intended victim of a fragging (yes, this really happened!). His idea of the best way to discipline a man was to shoot him. Trouble is, you don't get much out of him after you've done that. Used his one and only victory (Chickamauga) to get rid of subordinates he disliked instead of driving the Yankees out of Tennessee.


Ambrose Burnside: The saddest case of all. Burnside knew he was not competent to command an army, and didn't hide the fact. It took the horror of Fredericksburg to show the North that he wasn't just being modest. With Antietam Creek fordable in at least one other spot, he couldn't think of anything better to do than charge right at the heavily guarded bridge. With all of Northern Virginia to maneuver in, he made a difficult and slow river crossing to assault prepared positions on high ground. Lee could have stayed in his tent and beaten Burnside.


Benjamin Butler: Maybe he wasn't a crook, but he sure acted like one. Clearly one of the ethically-challenged. His administration of New Orleans was solid but filled with faux pas. Meanwhile, his relatives and friends filled their pockets trading with the enemy. It was in field command that he really stank. His lethargy would have embarrassed McClellan. Instead of being a springboard for an offensive, Bermuda Hundred became the largest internment camp for Union soldiers in the whole war, and the Confederates didn't have to lift a finger.


John Fremont: Arguably the worst general of the Civil War, perhaps the worst in American history. The Union was saved only because he was not given greater responsibility. Whenever he was given a command, he would insulate himself behind a bizarre entourage of foreign military non-entities. Even his immediate subordinates could rarely see him. It was easier to get a private interview with the Sultan of Turdy. Orders were certainly greatly distorted by the time they seeped into or out of his headquarters. This would explain why almost every move he made in the field was precisely the wrong one.


Joseph Hooker: The Peter Principle poster child of 1863. Could give the Doobie Brothers lessons on partying (yep, that's where hookers got their name). Like Hood, he was a good, aggressive division commander. Some of the bloodiest moments of the war came when he and Hood happened to be on the same field at the same time. Lost his nerve just when he could have given Lee a hard time at Chancellorsville. He did some good service in the West later, but resigned over some political brou-ha-ha.


John Bell Hood: The Peter Principle poster child of 1864. He was a great brigade and division commander. Just wind him up and point him in the right direction and let him go. Giving him the Army of Tennessee was probably one of the lamest decisions old Jeff ever made. If Hood had had Sherman's resources, he would have been **** on wheels (if a frog had wings he wouldn't bang his behind on the ground, too!). Hood also had a disturbing tendency to lose parts of his body at every battle.


George McClellan: The most frustrating of generals. The only human being who would fold with a royal flush. Even long after the war, with Confederate records open for all to see, he would claim to have been greatly outnumbered. Of course, if you're badly outnumbered and you get beaten, then it really isn't your fault, is it? Probably a good study for a psychological study.


Gideon Pillow: Gained an unenviable reputation in the Mexican War. Grant, who knew him, held him in open contempt. How he managed to get a commission as a general in the Confederate army is mystifying. After contributing to the fiasco at Fort Donelson, he, along with General Floyd (who ought also to be on this list), left Simon Bolivar Buckner holding the bag, causing that fine officer, who was worth at least a dozen of Pillow and Floyd, to spend months languishing in a Federal prison camp. Fortunately for the South, Pillow and Floyd were never given another major command.


John Pope: If bombast could win battles, Pope would have saved the Union single-handedly. He gained some success in the West, then was transferred east and promoted to command the Army of Virginia while McClellan watched the grass grow at Harrison's Landing. He then proceeded to underwhelm everyone. Eastern veterans resented being lectured on how Westerners won battles. Lee, angered by Pope's treatment of civilians, determined to "suppress" him (It was best not to anger Lee. He was likely enough to whip you anyway without making him mad in the bargain). Lee sent Jackson to befuddle Pope, and Longstreet to smash him at Second Manassas. Pope was then sent to Minnesota to inflict his prose on the Sioux.

DColeman
09-10-2009, 11:22 AM
Yea, but Jefferson Davis is on Stone Mountain complete with laser show!

sbl
09-10-2009, 11:37 AM
Carved by Walker Hancock, a late Gloucester, Mass resident.

Just sayin'.

plankmaker
09-10-2009, 11:42 AM
Yes, and the laser light show really sticks with that CW theme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLZIzM2sVHo

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

sbl
09-10-2009, 04:14 PM
WOW! I'm Mean...WOW! I wished I'd stayed for THAT when I was down there!

I thought our Labor Day boat parade and fireworks over Gloucester harbor was spectacular.

But THAT! WOW!

RebelBugler
09-11-2009, 10:06 AM
So you're saying that, if Lincoln was "the Great Emancipator," Davis was "the Inept Enslaver"?

"The Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states."

Charles Dickens

Pvt Schnapps
09-11-2009, 11:02 AM
"The Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states."

Charles Dickens

"Though we cannot extirpate all pain, we can, if we are sufficiently determined upon it, abolish all tyranny; one of the greatest victories yet gained over that enemy is slave-emancipation, and all Europe is struggling, with various success, towards further conquests over it. If, in the pursuit of this, we lose sight of any object equally important; if we forget that freedom is not the only thing necessary for human beings, let us be thankful to any one who points out what is wanting; but let us not consent to turn back. That this country should turn back, in the matter of negro slavery, I have not the smallest apprehension.

"There is, however, another place where that tyranny still flourishes, but now for the first time finds itself seriously in danger. At this crisis of American slavery, when the decisive conflict between right and iniquity seems about to commence, your contributor steps in, and flings this missile, loaded with the weight of his reputation, into the abolitionist camp. The words of English writers of celebrity are words of power on the other side of the ocean; and the owners of human flesh, who probably thought they had not an honest man on their side between the Atlantic and the Vistula, will welcome such an auxiliary. Circulated as his dissertation will probably be, by those whose interests profit by it, from one end of the American Union to the other, I hardly know of an act by which one person could have done so much mischief as this may possibly do; and I hold that by thus acting, he has made himself an instrument of what an able writer in the Inquirer justly calls 'a true work of the devil.'"

John Stuart Mill

Headlog
09-11-2009, 11:47 AM
Carved by Walker Hancock, a late Gloucester, Mass resident.

Just sayin'.

Wrong, as usual.

The Massachusetts-based sculptor Walker Hancock took over the project, following Lukeman's models. New Orleans stone carver George Weiblen (1895-1970) was ultimately commissioned to supervise the 7 carvers working on the site in the 1960s. Weiblen and his wife lived in a trailer at the mountain's base. On 25 March 1966, The Atlanta Journal reported that the stone carving was costing $442.80/day in wages, including those of Mr. Weiblen. In the same article, the 70-year-old New Orleans tomb designer conveyed his reasons for taking on the project:

'I want to put my father's name there, too. He brought his family from New Orleans in 1911 to open a quarry on the back side of Stone Mountain and he leased the whole mountain. He offered the Venable Brothers a million dollars for it in 1920. He died in 1961 at the age of 99 and five months. He said he wanted to lie down before breakfast and he took one deep breath and he was gone. I don't know how I will work his name in but there is a way."

George Weiblen died at Stone Mountain in 1970, the same year Vice President Spiro T. Agnew dedicated the monument.

Source: http://southeasternarchitecture.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html

Pvt Schnapps
09-11-2009, 12:10 PM
I should add that the Dickens quote appears to be a forgery. I did a search for "The Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug" and "Dickens" on Google, got 48 hits, and they were all for modern Confederate sites, or newspapers quoting such.

I could find no attribution of the quote to an actual work by Dickens, including his correspondence, most if not all of which is online.

At the very best, the quote might be a paraphrase of something else he wrote or said. As it stands now, it's just another example of a movement that either hasn't the honesty to speak the truth, or the wit to find it.

If you want to read what Dickens really thought about the peculiar institution, he wrote a whole chapter in his "American Notes" called "Slavery" and you can find it here:

http://www.readbookonline.net/read/2388/11512/

"THE upholders of slavery in America - of the atrocities of which
system, I shall not write one word for which I have not had ample
proof and warrant - may be divided into three great classes...."

sbl
09-11-2009, 12:52 PM
Interview with Walker Hancock
Conducted by Robert Brown
In Gloucester, Massachusetts
July 22, 1977

Preface

The following oral history transcript is the result of a tape-recorded interview with Walker Hancock on July 22, 1977. The interview was conducted in Gloucester, Massachusetts by Robert Brown for the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution




"........

ROBERT BROWN: I think one of your most involved commissions was the one to finish the figures at the Confederate Memorial in Stone Mountain, Georgia. This was quite a long involvement, wasn’t it?

WALKER HANCOCK: Yes, it was. It didn’t begin at all as a commission to finish those figures. It went back to a competition which was extremely well organized by very skillful people to find a solution for a Confederate Memorial. The memorial carving that had been begun on the mountain, and had weathered so that it was hardly visible, would be abandoned and a memorial group or figure set in front of it with an appropriate landscape setting. In 1962, in addition to Lamar Dodd, who was the chairman, the committee to choose a sculptor consisted of Lloyd Goodrich, Paul Manship, Henri Marsout, John Walker, and William Zorach. Each of the jurors, as the paper said, “occupies in his own right a unique position in the field of art.” It was a very good committee. They agreed that the nine sculptors who were selected to compete should choose their own landscape architects, and the themes would be judged as a whole. I happened to be at the Academy in Rome, in residence as the resident sculptor, when I was told that we had won the competition and that I was to appear at once in Atlanta. Which I did. And, the moment I arrived I was told that contrary to the program of the competition these carvings would have to be finished. The people of Georgia would not stand for not having the carving finished. So, I immediately had to revise my scheme to allow for the carving to be the central motif, and our monumental sculpture to be in a sense accessory to that. This was done, and we got a very good plan which involved a reflecting pool under the carving, two ziggurats at the side on which there would be two bronze towers, sixty-five feet high, with rather light flame-like shapes decorated with figures representing the Southern ideal and the Southern way of life. As much as possible, the attitude of the culture—that after all was such a powerful motive that these people fought for four years against insuperable odds—all this I wanted to get into the idea of a Confederate Memorial.

ROBERT BROWN: You were quite excited at the prospect.

WALKER HANCOCK: I thought it had enormous possibilities, and it did have. I assure you I was not content to call three portraits on a mountainside the Confederate Memorial. They agreed very readily and despite some local opposition of art groups and newspapers and so on, it looked as if the work would go ahead. And, on strength of that hope, I undertook to direct the finishing of the carving as consultant. I was very careful to call myself the consultant of the carving and not the sculptor.

ROBERT BROWN: Why was that?

WALKER HANCOCK: Because the carving after all had been begun from a model by Augustus Ludeman, and it was clear that the only way that it could be carried out was to continue with Ludeman’s model. So I felt that I was simply a consultant and not the sculptor, in that case certainly not the sculptor. But, despite the fact that I wasn’t to be the sculptor I did have to take a very strange sculptural project, because Ludeman, although an extremely competent sculptor, had made some enormous mistakes in proportion in his scale model. The model was handsome, it had motion to it. It had a kind of fine monumental quality, but the heads of the figures were large enough to be those of six-year old boys, and they couldn’t have been made to look like dignified leaders of the Confederacy. This was Davis, Jackson and Robert E. Lee in the middle. Unfortunately, it had been carried so far that there was no going back. Davis’ head had been finished by Ludeman’s carvers and it had been finished very well. It is a very handsome piece of portraiture and carving. The Lee head was almost finished, the Jackson head not at all. I had to saw up the cast of Ludeman’s model, fill in the missing pieces, lengthen the arms, lengthen the torsos, lower the bodies of the horses in order to give the men enough room, enough presence to live up to their heads. This brought the horses down to below the line which had been cut by the original carvers. There were deep channels cutting right through what we would have liked to have as the material for the large horse and their legs. So, it was clear that the legs of the horses could never be carved. My thought was, and I still think it’s a good one, that if the carving were left with the rugged, jagged shapes of the rock around it, it could partake somewhat of that out-of-door character, the granite. It could terminate the lower section, in a very roughly hewn technique, that would suggest its having been partly brought out of the rock but not entirely.

ROBERT BROWN: Something on the order of Michelangelo’s Slaves.

WALKER HANCOCK: That was the exact example that I used in my arguments. I took down photographs of those slaves and said this is what we want, but the trouble with such an idea was that I had no choice of the carver. I was designated as the person to have complete authority on every aesthetic matter having to do with the memorial. This was an empty appointment I soon discovered, but it sounded hopeful to me at the time. Still, having no carver who was good enough for the job presented unforeseen difficulties of such enormous proportions that I will never be able to describe them all to you. There was one professional carver, hired by the contractor. But a large part of the work had to be undertaken by a rigger, a man who was an ex-marine, who very quickly learned the technique of handling the torches and taking measurements. And in short order [the rigger] took over the work of carving to the point where the professional carver was got rid of.


More of the interview at this link......

http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/oralhistories/transcripts/hancoc77.htm

sbl
09-11-2009, 12:54 PM
".................

ROBERT BROWN: When were you last involved with the project?

WALKER HANCOCK: Well, of course I still am, because the terraces are now being built.

ROBERT BROWN: In that revised form?

WALKER HANCOCK: In that revised form. I haven’t been there for a very long time. I haven’t seen any of the landscaping development which I understand is going very well. But, I have on my desk today a request for information about the lugs in the back of the cast, the position of them, and so there is that kind of chore continuing, and I suppose will continue for another year.

ROBERT BROWN: Are you fairly happy with the way the stone carving and the way the face of the mountain looks?

WALKER HANCOCK: No. But, when one considers what we had to begin with—carving that was incorrectly begun, and no professional carver to carry out what the models showed to be done—it is rather remarkable. But, from that point of view only I think. I don’t think that in perhaps thirty or forty years when it has weathered and hasn’t that detached look that it now has. It looks like something very separate from the mountain, but when it is pulled in by the action of the weather I think it won’t be offensive. And, in a way maybe even effective, because I think a great deal of gigantic sculpture in the world is effective without being very perfect. There is something in the very quality of volume that is impressive.

Regular DOC
09-11-2009, 01:05 PM
This hasn't been posted in a while. Thought this would be a good place for it.


Benjamin Butler: Maybe he wasn't a crook, but he sure acted like one. Clearly one of the ethically-challenged. His administration of New Orleans was solid but filled with faux pas. Meanwhile, his relatives and friends filled their pockets trading with the enemy. It was in field command that he really stank. His lethargy would have embarrassed McClellan. Instead of being a springboard for an offensive, Bermuda Hundred became the largest internment camp for Union soldiers in the whole war, and the Confederates didn't have to lift a finger.


Hey minus the fact heavily through his efforts New Orleans annual Yellow fever outbreak was mostly mild throughout the liberation. It heavily peaked again once the occupation returned.

sbl
09-12-2009, 08:59 AM
Imprecise words. He was the sculptor not the only carver.

RebelBugler
09-13-2009, 02:26 PM
I should add that the Dickens quote appears to be a forgery. I did a search for "The Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug" and "Dickens" on Google, got 48 hits, and they were all for modern Confederate sites, or newspapers quoting such.

I could find no attribution of the quote to an actual work by Dickens, including his correspondence, most if not all of which is online.

At the very best, the quote might be a paraphrase of something else he wrote or said. As it stands now, it's just another example of a movement that either hasn't the honesty to speak the truth, or the wit to find it.

If you want to read what Dickens really thought about the peculiar institution, he wrote a whole chapter in his "American Notes" called "Slavery" and you can find it here:

http://www.readbookonline.net/read/2388/11512/

"THE upholders of slavery in America - of the atrocities of which
system, I shall not write one word for which I have not had ample
proof and warrant - may be divided into three great classes...."

Keep doing your research and don't confuse the issues. Yes, Dickens opposed slavery and YES, he thought the war was initiated by the North for Economic reasons. Dicken's opposition to slavery does not negate his belief that the war was instigated by the North because of economics

Dickens vehemently opposed slavery, and called it a “most hideous blot and foul disgrace” upon the face of American civilization. However, he had some sympathies with the cause of the South, because he thought the Civil War was started by the north for economic reasons.

Pvt Schnapps
09-13-2009, 07:58 PM
Keep doing your research and don't confuse the issues. Yes, Dickens opposed slavery and YES, he thought the war was initiated by the North for Economic reasons. Dicken's opposition to slavery does not negate his belief that the war was instigated by the North because of economics

Dickens vehemently opposed slavery, and called it a “most hideous blot and foul disgrace” upon the face of American civilization. However, he had some sympathies with the cause of the South, because he thought the Civil War was started by the north for economic reasons.

How about YOU do some research and tell us where that quote came from? It doesn't seem to exist anywhere in Dickens' actual writing. You've had several days now to come up with something to explain the initial forgery, and you can't. Nor have you made the least attempt to explain why you (obviously) think the war was started by the North for economic reasons. At this point, with so little to back your sweeping generalizations, why in the world should anyone take you seriously?

Second, in light of John Stuart Mill's statement about English apologists for the south, why -- even if you could find a statement by Dickens in support of the southern cause -- do you think it would matter?

sbl
09-13-2009, 09:03 PM
I thought Dickens was mad at Americans because of copy right issues among other things...


Charles Dickens as a Critic of the United States
by Louie Crew

First appeared in Midwest Quarterly 16.1 (1974): 42-50.

© 1974 by Midwest Quarterly; © 2004 by Louie Crew

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/pubd/dickens_usa.html

sbl
09-14-2009, 08:13 AM
Some variation of "if they'd had it, they would have used it" except with the folks you noted. ("WINK") ;)

Blockade Runner
09-14-2009, 09:38 AM
How about YOU do some research and tell us where that quote came from? It doesn't seem to exist anywhere in Dickens' actual writing. You've had several days now to come up with something to explain the initial forgery, and you can't. Nor have you made the least attempt to explain why you (obviously) think the war was started by the North for economic reasons. At this point, with so little to back your sweeping generalizations, why in the world should anyone take you seriously?

Second, in light of John Stuart Mill's statement about English apologists for the south, why -- even if you could find a statement by Dickens in support of the southern cause -- do you think it would matter?.

Pvt Schnapps....Alll you need to do is go to either of noted economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo's books concerning Lincoln and there are a multitude of concrete, substantive reasons as to why its fairly universally accepted that Lincoln started the war for economic reasons. In fact, there are chapters in DiLorenzo's books explaining, to even the most ardent Lincoln cultist, as to why he desired a war with the South. And his motivation was far from altruistic. That said, I will provide you with some quotes that came directly from Dishonest Abe's own lips. " We did not go into the war to put down slavery , but to put the flag back: and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith." More precisely to your point concerning economics and the war, when Lincoln heard of General Winfield Scott's assertion to let the South go their own way, Lincoln vehemently protested saying, "Let the South go? Let the South go? Where will we get our tax revenues".

As much as some may enjoy hoisting Lincoln up onto some sort of celestial pedestal, the fact remains that he needlessly contributed to the deaths of some 600.000 Americans. He deserves no reverence or plaudits. :twisted:

Pvt Schnapps
09-14-2009, 10:50 AM
.

Pvt Schnapps....Alll you need to do is go to either of noted economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo's books concerning Lincoln and there are a multitude of concrete, substantive reasons as to why its fairly universally accepted that Lincoln started the war for economic reasons. In fact, there are chapters in DiLorenzo's books explaining, to even the most ardent Lincoln cultist, as to why he desired a war with the South. And his motivation was far from altruistic. That said, I will provide you with some quotes that came directly from Dishonest Abe's own lips. " We did not go into the war to put down slavery , but to put the flag back: and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith." More precisely to your point concerning economics and the war, when Lincoln heard of General Winfield Scott's assertion to let the South go their own way, Lincoln vehemently protested saying, "Let the South go? Let the South go? Where will we get our tax revenues".

As much as some may enjoy hoisting Lincoln up onto some sort of celestial pedestal, the fact remains that he needlessly contributed to the deaths of some 600.000 Americans. He deserves no reverence or plaudits. :twisted:


Now you're starting another topic; DiLorenzo is a fringe historian whose works lean toward the editorial rather than historical. You can waste as much time as you want with him.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.226/pub_detail.asp

"To get an idea of how truly awful this book is, consider that its author sneers at what he calls some "pledge of allegiance to the central government." (He means, of course, the pledge of allegiance to the flag and "to the republic for which it stands.") This offhand remark epitomizes Thomas DiLorenzo's feckless treatment of his subject, Abraham Lincoln and his place in the American political tradition."

http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/97378.html#B

"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)."


It's interesting that you don't cite a reference for your quote of Lincoln regarding tax revenues. For one thing, he would have been unlikely to say "tax revenues" because the vast bulk of government income came from customs duties: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev1860_0.html#usgs30240

However much money Americans made on cotton, it wouldn't seem that much of it ended in Federal coffers.

So now you've piled another unattributed quote atop the first, and my earlier question remains as relevant as it is unanswered. Why should anyone take seriously a movement that invents quotes then circulates them among "historians" who haven't the minimal curiosity to check them out?

I'll add another -- where is your self respect as a historian? It took about thirty seconds to check out the Dickens quote and maybe two minutes to find Federal receipts in 1860.

Regular DOC
09-14-2009, 11:27 AM
Now you're starting another topic; DiLorenzo is a fringe historian whose works lean toward the editorial rather than historical. You can waste as much time as you want with him.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.226/pub_detail.asp

"To get an idea of how truly awful this book is, consider that its author sneers at what he calls some "pledge of allegiance to the central government." (He means, of course, the pledge of allegiance to the flag and "to the republic for which it stands.") This offhand remark epitomizes Thomas DiLorenzo's feckless treatment of his subject, Abraham Lincoln and his place in the American political tradition."

http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/97378.html#B

"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)."


It's interesting that you don't cite a reference for your quote of Lincoln regarding tax revenues. For one thing, he would have been unlikely to say "tax revenues" because the vast bulk of government income came from customs duties: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev1860_0.html#usgs30240

However much money Americans made on cotton, it wouldn't seem that much of it ended in Federal coffers.

So now you've piled another unattributed quote atop the first, and my earlier question remains as relevant as it is unanswered. Why should anyone take seriously a movement that invents quotes then circulates them among "historians" who haven't the minimal curiosity to check them out?

I'll add another -- where is your self respect as a historian? It took about thirty seconds to check out the Dickens quote and maybe two minutes to find Federal receipts in 1860.


Mike I am still waiting for the inevitable Lincoln was Gay statement.

sbl
09-14-2009, 11:43 AM
Well...he was shot in a theatre.

PMB1861
09-14-2009, 11:55 AM
I don't know what the cause of this little spat is about. But I feel obligated to comment on this statement...


As much as some may enjoy hoisting Lincoln up onto some sort of celestial pedestal, the fact remains that he needlessly contributed to the deaths of some 600.000 Americans. He deserves no reverence or plaudits. :twisted:

Laying the 600,000 dead at one man's feet and implying that if they did not participate or chose a different path in life that the War Between the States never would have happened or would have happened differently is an extreme and unwarranted hyperbole.

Now, this is off topic... but having just visited Fortress Monroe and recieving a reminder of Robert E. Lee's service to the United States, I see a parrallel. Isn't Robert E. Lee also complicit in the death's of 600,000 Americans and by inference unworthy of praise? (Not that I believe that. Lee is an example in my mind of a good man put in an impossible situation and he tried to do what was right in his belief and with all the honor he could muster)

And what does either 'thought' have to do with the honest study of history?

As historians we should look at our subjects as men, with all the greatness and weakness our human form entails. To increase any attribute to fit a political or social vision is an affront to history and truth.

plankmaker
09-14-2009, 12:25 PM
When I see these conversations start, I am reminded of baiting sharks. But then I make everything better by thinking happy thoughts like this penguin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBwqbqZ3L60

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

Regular DOC
09-14-2009, 12:53 PM
Well...he was shot in a theatre.

But would he have looked good in heels and a feather boa? IMHO he had the legs to pull off that look?:twisted:

Blockade Runner
09-14-2009, 01:23 PM
Now you're starting another topic; DiLorenzo is a fringe historian whose works lean toward the editorial rather than historical. You can waste as much time as you want with him.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.226/pub_detail.asp

"To get an idea of how truly awful this book is, consider that its author sneers at what he calls some "pledge of allegiance to the central government." (He means, of course, the pledge of allegiance to the flag and "to the republic for which it stands.") This offhand remark epitomizes Thomas DiLorenzo's feckless treatment of his subject, Abraham Lincoln and his place in the American political tradition."

http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/97378.html#B

"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)."


It's interesting that you don't cite a reference for your quote of Lincoln regarding tax revenues. For one thing, he would have been unlikely to say "tax revenues" because the vast bulk of government income came from customs duties: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev1860_0.html#usgs30240

However much money Americans made on cotton, it wouldn't seem that much of it ended in Federal coffers.

So now you've piled another unattributed quote atop the first, and my earlier question remains as relevant as it is unanswered. Why should anyone take seriously a movement that invents quotes then circulates them among "historians" who haven't the minimal curiosity to check them out?

I'll add another -- where is your self respect as a historian? It took about thirty seconds to check out the Dickens quote and maybe two minutes to find Federal receipts in 1860.

Pvt. Schnapps... The quote concerning Lincoln and the disproportionate tarrifs exacted from the pre-war South is from a book titled, "The South Was Right" by Kennedy, not that you would ever pick up a book by that title.:rolleyes: It's actually referenced in Admiral Semmes memoirs. However, I do understand your neanderthalish perspective...Confederate = bad, Union = good. Ugh.

No one needs to defend Tom DiLorenzo. He's a fabulous academician and author. However, I do think it's curious that DiLorenzo's detractors do not argue with the quotes he attributes to individuals but rather go after picayune, trivial errors that are not germane to the thoughts held by the individual. (In this case Dishoest Abe).

Lastly, isn't it the Claremont folks who sponsor a large "Lincoln Fest" every year? Certainly they don't have any vested interest in perpetuating the myths of the Lincoln cult:rolleyes:

sbl
09-14-2009, 01:43 PM
Booth had the legs.

http://lisawallerrogers.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/jwbooth-edwin-booth-junius-brutus-booth-jr-in-julius-caesar-in-1864.jpg

plankmaker
09-14-2009, 01:50 PM
Cowabunga, we need to get Batman to settle this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jg2okfrmR4

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

Pvt Schnapps
09-14-2009, 03:28 PM
Pvt. Schnapps... The quote concerning Lincoln and the disproportionate tarrifs exacted from the pre-war South is from a book titled, "The South Was Right" by Kennedy, not that you would ever pick up a book by that title.:rolleyes: It's actually referenced in Admiral Semmes memoirs. However, I do understand your neanderthalish perspective...Confederate = bad, Union = good. Ugh.

No one needs to defend Tom DiLorenzo. He's a fabulous academician and author. However, I do think it's curious that DiLorenzo's detractors do not argue with the quotes he attributes to individuals but rather go after picayune, trivial errors that are not germane to the thoughts held by the individual. (In this case Dishoest Abe).

Lastly, isn't it the Claremont folks who sponsor a large "Lincoln Fest" every year? Certainly they don't have any vested interest in perpetuating the myths of the Lincoln cult:rolleyes:

I'm still waiting for some attribution of the "revenue" quote to an actual work by Lincoln. A paraphrase of Semmes paraphrasing Lincoln in a book that bares its bias in its title seems pretty shaky documentation.

I'm also waiting for some explanation of why anyone would bandy about an apocryphal quote by Dickens. Most folks will understand me when I say I don't trust people who don't trust history.

While we're on the subject, do you have some original source that leads you to believe that a disproportionate amount of "tarrifs" came from the south? Do you have any idea what customs duties brought the federal government before and after secession? Do you know how that income compared with the previous twenty years? Would you have any idea where to look? If you could look, would you care?

I don't have a Confederate = bad; Union = good perspective. I've said it before and will say it again: To get a decent perspective on history you could do worse than believe the best things people say about themselves and the worst things their enemies say about them.

Pete put it well. Historians understand balance and the essential humanity of their subjects. Lincoln and Davis were men of their times. I don't think either one wore horns or a halo. If someone were trying to turn Davis into the antichrist I'd be just as critical of their sources.

Trying to construct pasteboard villains is not the goal of historians, any more than the construction of pasteboard saints.

Is that so hard to understand?

Regular DOC
09-14-2009, 05:53 PM
Booth had the legs.

http://lisawallerrogers.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/jwbooth-edwin-booth-junius-brutus-booth-jr-in-julius-caesar-in-1864.jpg



OHHHHH so now you are saying the assasination was a vicous love triangle involving Lincoln and Booth.:twisted: