Maryland Division SCV honors USCT Veteran with gravestone dedication

[Pvt Schnapps]

Thomas DiLorenzo, in his widely acclaimed book, The Real Lincoln asserts the following concerning Lincoln and slavery. " A crusade against slavery would have offered a compelling case for Lincoln's war, but he never made that case. Until the day he died, he insisted that the war was being fought to deny Southerners the right of secession that virtually all the founding fathers believed was fundamental. Slavery, according to Lincoln, was only incidental to the real cause of the war: "saving the Union". Lincoln called up 75,000 troops to surpress a rebellion, not to free the slaves. Indeed, the official name of the war is the "War of Rebellion". Lincoln and the Republican Party did use the slavery issue brilliantly, however, to advance their real objective: establishiing a consolidated federal government and essentially destroying state sovereignty".

DiLorenzo's arguements concerning Lincoln's real rationale for waging a war against the South are very persasive and compelling.

Well, they don't convince everyone. It seems doubtful that DiLorenzo, an economist, could earn the credentials of a historian. Here's a portion of a review by Thomas Krannawitter in the Claremont Review:

"These examples barely begin to sketch the real political world in which Abraham Lincoln exercised his statesmanship. It is a world of which DiLorenzo appears to be almost wholly ignorant. His unreal Lincoln inhabits an unreal world, so crudely and tendentiously drawn as to beggar belief. One wonders if the libertarian neo-Confederates have run out of front-line troops. In this screed, at any rate, they have sent a giddy, careless, half-educated boy to do a man's job. And it shows."

http://www.claremont.org/publication...cle_detail.asp

There's also this discussion on World Net Daily by David Quackenbush, which explodes a series of DiLorenzo's arguments as being -- surprise, surprise -- unsubstantiated by the historical record:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27346

The book was sufficiently bad that most reputable journals didn't bother with it and the Washington Times (the conservative paper in DC) trashed it.

Of course, there are many positive reviews of the book, too. You can read one here:

http://www.whitenationalist.info/for...ad.php?p=21242

On the whole, anyone wanting to understand Lincoln would do better to read Lincoln himself. A few other original sources would help too.

[Malingerer]

Wow Schnapps, the truth can bet a bit harsh sometimes. I clicked that bottom link - holy c**p! If the IT people at work notice that I could have some 'splaining to do to my boss.

[Blockade Runner]

My preference is not to put Lincoln on a pedestal. The war certainly could have been avoided, and DiLorenzo in both The Real Linclon and Lincoln Unmasked explains how and why Lincoln chose a different path.

History in many ways is like an ice cream store. All of us can choose flavor's that they prefer. Those that deal in absolutes regarding history are doing everyone a great disservice

[Malingerer]

My preference is not to put Lincoln on a pedestal. The war certainly could have been avoided, and Di Lorenzo in both The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked explains how and why Lincoln chose a different path.

History in many ways is like an ice cream store. All of us can choose flavor's that they prefer. Those that deal in absolutes regarding history are doing everyone a great disservice

Scott Lesch has a great quote at the bottom of his signature line:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts - Daniel Patrick Moynahan.

The truth only comes in one flavor - unless of course one is living in his own private Idaho.

[Sgt_Pepper]

Those that deal in absolutes regarding history are doing everyone a great disservice

One must wonder, is the emoticon an acknowledgment of the vast irony of that statement? If I read you correctly, you're saying that you intend to continue believing as you have said regardless of any contradictory facts set before you. Sir, I must tell you I am a Southerner born and bred. No one stands ahead of me in my love for the South, yet my opinions and beliefs about its role in the history of the United States of America have changed considerably since I was a child, and are still changing as new information comes to light. Sir, as another Southern patriot, I tell you your position is untenable.

And with that, I now bow out of this conversation to allow others of greater ability to continue without my kibitzing.

[Malingerer]

One must wonder, is the emoticon an acknowledgment of the vast irony of that statement?

And with that, I now bow out of this conversation to allow others of greater ability to continue without my kibitzing.

You may want to explain to blockade runner what irony means.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

You know what they say about ice cream - whether its Breyer's or regular old supermarket brand, if it's made from **** it's gonna taste like ****

[Blockade Runner]

Scott Lesch has a great quote at the bottom of his signature line:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts - Daniel Patrick Moynahan.

The truth only comes in one flavor - unless of course one is living in his own private Idaho.

Truth is a very elusive commodity. Karl Marx thought the truth was the Communist Manifesto. Hitler thought the truth was fascism. Facts and opinions are often very blurred, particulalry in history and politics.

Everyone has their own individual biases that taint their opinions and perspective, even the indomitable Patrick Moynahan.

[Malingerer]

Truth is a very elusive commodity. Karl Marx thought the truth was the Communist Manifesto. Hitler thought the truth was fascism. Facts and opinions are often very blurred, particulalry in history and politics.

Everyone has their own individual biases that taint their opinions and perspective, even the indomitable Patrick Moynahan.

OK, fair enough. It's my humble opinion that Pi = 3.0
As you say the truth is elusive.

[firstmdes]

My preference is not to put Lincoln on a pedestal. The war certainly could have been avoided, and DiLorenzo in both The Real Linclon and Lincoln Unmasked explains how and why Lincoln chose a different path.

Again, we are not debating the motives of Lincoln or the North. We are debating the motives of the South, including Stephens and all the other fine gentlemen who have been quoted as saying they were seceding and fighting because of slavery. Let's stop with the Lincoln tangents!

History in many ways is like an ice cream store. All of us can choose flavor's that they prefer. Those that deal in absolutes regarding history are doing everyone a great disservice

Funny coming from the man who is absolutely certain that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the American Civil War! Time and time again you have ignored the words of the C.S.A.'s "Founding Fathers." I would have to assume that they had a better idea of what they were leaving the Union for than someone writing a politically motivated book 140+ years later. SHow me the words of these founding fathers that say, "Slavery has nothing to do with this war. I want to kill over the Line Item Veto and the Six Year Presidential Term!"

What a great war rallying cry: "Don't Tread on My Line Item Veto!"