Lincoln wanted to maintain the idea that the union had not been broken. The mails, forts, courts and import taxes were virtually the only ways the goverment acted in those days, hence the symbolic importance of the pretence that the government could still collect tariffs. I don't think Lincoln counted on collecting much money from the rebel states, but maintaining a military installation or two was key to keeping the flag flying.
DiLorenzo's ignorance of earlier American history and his willful distortion of Lincoln's record -- his deliberately reading a passage from the Lincoln-Douglas debates out of context to convey the opposite of what Lincoln intended -- make him a very suspect guide to our history. Claremont's views aren't for everyone, but they do take DiLorenzo seriously and take more time to refute him than he really deserves. J.F. Epperson has also done a good job tracking down DiLorenzo's factual errors, distortions of interpretation, and shoddy scholarship.
Your view of the beginning of the war is too clean and rationalistic. It ignores the panic of the time and the rhetoric of conquest indulged in by secessionist leaders. It also ignores the fact that the Confederates began the war and intended to gain territory by doing so. Begin a war and then say, "we just want to be left alone," and it's likely that others won't take your words seriously. That "we just want to be left alone" is more an excuse concocted for the defeated Confederacy than the real spirit of 1861.
That year was not a time of calm, rational discussion or of successful rational planning. It saw a collapse of reason into emotionalism, militant passions, panic and lust for glory. Had reason, good sense, and purposeful, intentional action been stronger then, there would likely have been a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
The Civil War was typical -- on both sides -- of mass ideologically motivated warfare in the industrial age. It was not more brutal on civilians that others of that sort. Sherman's destructive war on Confederate property was unfortunate to those who suffered from it, but it was a war on property not a brutal war on civilian lives.
You have denied that this matters, but you've said nothing to convince me. Essentially, you have a condemnation of the Civil War, of the two World Wars and of other wars in the modern age. But it doesn't amount to a serious indictment of Lincoln or the Union Armies.
Not really, though I do have confidence in my arguments, which is perfectly fair in debate. If you disagree with those arguments, you are perfectly free to make your case, to which I will do my best to respond. But vague generalized allegations about my own treatment of my arguments are not responses to them, are they?
Lincoln wanted to maintain the idea that the union had not been broken. The mails, forts, courts and import taxes were virtually the only ways the goverment acted in those days
No, not really, Even as early as 1850 the government had already embarked heavily into the realm of subsidization, internal speding projects and the sort.
hence the symbolic importance of the pretence that the government could still collect tariffs. That argument would be fine, but the treatment afforded to tariff collection by Lincoln was significantly greater than a symbolic stance along side other similar government functions. It was a focus of his concern both publicly, where he made the symbolic case, and also privately in his personal correspondence.
-- his deliberately reading a passage from the Lincoln-Douglas debates out of context to convey the opposite of what Lincoln intended --
I'm of the understanding that DiLorenzo has long conceded that passage as an error and has actively taken steps to correct it in future editions, so I don't see how it could be some "deliberate" distortion scheme of his. More likely it's a single simple mistake not unlike isolated mistakes found in any given book of reasonable length.
J.F. Epperson has also done a good job tracking down DiLorenzo's factual errors, distortions of interpretation, and shoddy scholarship.
I am very familiar with that link, though I must protest your characterization of his analysis. It is among the sloppiest of the DiLorenzo critiques out there. A while back when he first posted it on his site, I critiqued his complaints myself for factual accuracy. It'll take some digging on FR to find my post, but I can safely say that there are multiple clear cut factual errors in Epperson's list.
Your view of the beginning of the war is too clean and rationalistic. It ignores the panic of the time and the rhetoric of conquest indulged in by secessionist leaders. It also ignores the fact that the Confederates began the war and intended to gain territory by doing so.
I don't believe that subject has been raised, in which case it is difficult for you to know how it fits into my argument. For the present, I need only note that those who advocated expansion and conquest were by and large overruled within the confederate leadership during the early days of the war. Davis himself overruled a proposal to invade Washington after the victory at Manassas, for example. The plans never got off the ground.
Begin a war and then say, "we just want to be left alone," and it's likely that others won't take your words seriously.
Davis had been saying "we just want ot be left alone" since January. He only fired on Sumter when Lincoln provoked it by sending his fleet.
That "we just want to be left alone" is more an excuse concocted for the defeated Confederacy than the real spirit of 1861.
Then why does it appear repeatedly in the writings and speeches of Confederate leaders during the 1860-61 winter when secession was actually taking place?
Sherman's destructive war on Confederate property was unfortunate to those who suffered from it, but it was a war on property not a brutal war on civilian lives.
The civilians who were executed on orders from Sherman's commanders would likely disagree with you.
You have denied that this matters, but you've said nothing to convince me.
Nor should I expect any different. A relativist will tend to find absolutist positions unconvincing no matter the reasoning behind them.