Evidence Builds for DeLorenzo's Lincoln

October 16, 2002 | Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

[WhiskeyPapa]

Your actions indicate otherwise. You are physically incapable of admitting any error on The Lincoln's part - not even the most trivial errors of humanity that even some of the other yankee lovers on here will concede. Your actions indicate that you have extended a sort of infallability and perfection to The Lincoln that he never actually possessed in real life. You have also spoken of The Lincoln as an ideal and a guide for our culture and nation. All of this indicates your idolatry.

Why is it that all I can think of is Charlie Daniels:

"I'm a faithful follower of Brother John Birch,

And I belong to the Antioch Baptist Church."

I haven't broken any commandments in admiring Lincoln. You've broken some in attacking him, though.

Walt

[agrandis]

...in that day it could be very dangerous to say what you really think.

Kind of reminds me of some places in our country today. H.K. Edgerton has been seriously, physically threatened when he set up a booth at a Kwanzai festival with pictures of his Confederate ancestors. My brother was there (as part of security at the festival), and told me a crowd of brainwashed Blacks were going to kill one of their own for telling people the truth about his lineage.

[WhiskeyPapa]

GOPCapitalist thinks he's FOOLING people that the Nazis were National Socialists? What a boob! Everyone knows the Nazis were not NATIONAL SOCIALISTS!

Hitler was stroking the left until he felt he could do without them. He took power in 1933. The Night of the Long Knives was in 1934.

In 1935 he abolished all labor unions.

That ain't much stroking.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Why did Hitler's minions kill between 12-15 million Russian workers? That's a mighty funny way to unite people.

See above. It's a way a Soviet socialist named Joe Stalin tried as well for that matter.

The Soviets did, after a fashion, adopt socialism. Certainly there was no private ownership. When the Nazis crashed in and advanced almost to Moscow, Stalin adopted more of a defense of the motherland motif and played down the socialist idea.

You know -- nationalism and socialism are opposites.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

You should tap some of that into the thread.

Not that you'd have any interest in it considering your tendency to IGNORE what you don't want to hear.

At least I am willing to provide to the readers of the thread excerpts from the record. You are not.

The reason for that is that the record doesn't support you. Most of the content of your posts consist of attacks on people you don't like, not the discussion of the record.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

Show that he is prejudiced --in--the--book--.

I already told you where you can find that, Walt. It's in the section on the secession crisis and Corwin amendment. You may also find bias in his incredibly sloppy consideration of regional economics.

If you want to post either of those sections on FR for consideration I suppose you are free to do so. I've already dissected them elsewhere on FR in the past if you want to look there as well. That aside, I did not find it worth my effort to give up $11.99 for a stack of fish rap and accordingly will not buy a copy.

I am the only one, as I recall, who ever quotes BCF.

And that in itself speaks volumes beyond what you could ever imagine. FR, you know, isn't exactly the best place in the world to flood with a barrage of cut n' paste quotes from a marxist democrat historian with known political biases in his work.

[agrandis]

Yeah, the Soviet Union was just full of independent labor unions, too.

To say that socialism is the opposite, by definition, of nationlism is like saying that apples, by definition, are the opposite of oranges. It makes no sense. It makes even less sense than that, actually, because nationalism is not in any way exclusive of socialism, or vice versa. The current Chinese regime is both, for instance. Socialists usually do have a dream of spreading the revolution globaly, but there are mant ways to attempt this, some of which in no way exclude nationlism. The multi-cultural (really just uni-cultural) socialism of our own Left is equally as dangerous and potentially murderous as national socialism, BTW.

[GOPcapitalist]

At least I am willing to provide to the readers of the thread excerpts from the record. You are not.

You can add that one to your list of lies for the day as well. As any regular reader of these threads could tell you, I regularly post excerpts from first hand historical documents to support my arguments. You simply ignore them because you do not wish to see what they say.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I think "Kwanzai!" is what the Zulu warriors were chanting in the movie "Zulu!"

Walt

[LS]

I think Hofstadter dismisses Fitzhugh precisely because Fitzhugh cut both ways, endangering northern abolitionist "free love" radicals and exposing them as socialists. Note that this is not the same as the northern capitalists, who had little in common with these guys. But who knows why Hofstadter takes Calhoun seriously, but not Fitzhugh. Ask him. To me, the ideas are nearly identical, and that is why they are so important.

And there is plenty of Lincoln available on what he said about banks and corporations. See my article, "Abraham Lincoln and the Growth of Government in the Civil War Era," Continuity, Spring 1997.

I'll say again, Lincoln was consistent. He FIRMLY believed that labor was a cornerstone, but only a means to attaining a farm and/or industrial work. Even the socialist historians, like Foner, admit this.

[WhiskeyPapa]

You can add that one to your list of lies for the day as well. As any regular reader of these threads could tell you, I regularly post excerpts from first hand historical documents to support my arguments. You simply ignore them because you do not wish to see what they say.

Which post of yours has a quote from a contemporary source?

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

The Soviets did, after a fashion, adopt socialism.

Yeah, and in doing so they murdered some 20 million of their own people by way of concentration camp, forced famine, and slaughter fields. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were similar to an amazing degree. Joe Goebbels certainly thought so.

You know -- nationalism and socialism are opposites.

Demonstrate it, as you have failed to thus far. Quod gratis asseriture gratis negatur.

[LS]

Dude, when you read as many journals as I do, you start to forget WHAT journal you've read, and when. I still don't think Ec. Inquriy is top tier, and gave reasons for that; I also cited many top tier journals (far from "shooting my mouth off") and have, unlike you, actually done research on and published on Lincoln. It is you extracting gems from the past and presuming to build large structures on them.

You would know, for example, that Marx contradicted himself incessantly to prove whatever point he wanted to make; or that he constantly "modified" or altered his "theories." But what Marx thought of Lincoln is irrelevant. There is no serious scholar of whom I'm aware that sees anything "socialist" in the writings of Lincoln, unless it is DeLorenzo.

[LS]

Leessee, you have yet to cite a single historian. Robert Loewenberg, one of Fitzhugh's few biographers, maintains that he was the ESSENCE of the pro-slavery argument. The only one who really denies it is C. Vann Woodward.

[GOPcapitalist]

Hitler was stroking the left until he felt he could do without them.

That must've been to the very end of his life then because Joseph Goebbels was a philosophical marxist of the far left. Hitler stroked Goebbels to the very end of his life and named the latter his successor as Fuehrer before committing suicide. Though they had a political falling out later in the war, Hermann Goering had his own socialist tendencies as well and was stroked by Hitler to the latter days of the reich.

In 1935 he abolished all labor unions.

As I noted earlier, Soviet Poland (as in the Soviet puppet state of Poland for those of you who are too stupid to figure out what that means, Walt) wasn't very fond of labor unions either. Nor was the Vietcong for that matter. That didn't make any of them any less socialist though.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Socialists usually do have a dream of spreading the revolution globaly, but there are mant ways to attempt this, some of which in no way exclude nationlism.

Pure socialism assumes a worldwide brotherhood of workers. Nations and nationalism are to be swept away. As Andy Card said a couple of days ago, the two concepts are at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

I haven't broken any commandments in admiring Lincoln.

Yes you have. You've beared false witness to preserve his reputation. That makes one. You've also extended to him certain qualitied of infallability and perfection that he never posessed iin reality, then extended your devoted reverence to that new creation of The Lincoln. That makes two.

[Maelstrom]

"Slouching Toward Catastrophe: 1914-1939"
by George H. Nash, Author, Presidential Biographer

--------------------------------------------------

Volume 21, Number 4
Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan 49242
April 1992

Historians have noted many similarities between Bolshevism and Nazism, and between their respective founding fathers. Like Lenin, Hitler was a revolutionary and a self- proclaimed socialist, although his variant was called "national socialism" rather than international. Like Lenin, Hitler was anti-Christian and totally without moral scruples. Like Lenin, he conceived of politics in military terms and instituted an apparatus of state violence never before seen on earth. But whereas for Leninists the meaning of existence was class struggle, for Nazis the engine of history was racial struggle. In short, and, again, as other historians have observed, Hitler's world view was a form of Social Darwinism -- the notion, put crudely, of "the survival of the fittest." For Hitler and his followers, the essence of social evolution was not economic but ethnic.

From the start the Trotskyists were a minority in a period of general political reaction: few in number, they were also persecuted by the Fascistic government of Uriburu. [1] The possibilities of developing an important faction within the PCA, as happened in Chile and Brazil, disappeared. Paradoxically, the first upsurge and the reemergence of the workers’ movement in 1933-36 strengthened the PCA most of all which, from then on, would have a decisive influence on the destiny of the organised proletariat. From that moment the initial nucleus of the Opposition disappeared, literally without trace. Aid came in the form of much younger and inexperienced militants, although these did include an ex-Anarchist trade unionist expelled by the PCA. The weakness of the Trotskyists did not stop the PCA from enthusiastically joining the campaign against ‘Hitler-Trotskyism’ launched by the Communist International and the CPSU, a witch-hunt made worse by the already reactionary nature of the period, symbolised by the Fascist Minister of the Interior, Sanchez Sorondo. (He had proposed that the workers continue wearing their working clothes in their homes and on the streets to ‘distinguish them’). [2]

www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/arg01.htm

Of course you can make the specious claim that Trotskyism isn't socialism, but very few people are buying your stuff as it is.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/young5.html
http://www.chuckmorse.com/nazism_is_leftwing.html

And since you asked for SOME: Margaret Sanger admired Hitler and adopted policies
Ernst Haeckel
The Monist League that he had founded and led, though it included a wing of pacifists and leftists, made a comfortable transition to active support for Hitler." (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University], "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).

Plenty more if you care to search. Socialism is as socialism does. However, if you insist that socialism is an international phenomenon and not a nationalist phenomenon, why then, ALL socialist nations are in fact fascist instead.

Please also note that Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky also shared another commonality. They all sought to implement socialism. The differences in the methods they chose for implementation led most of them to become the most vicious of enemies.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Hitler stroked Goebbels to the very end of his life and named the latter his successor as Fuehrer before committing suicide.

Hitler named Admiral Donitz as Fuhrer.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

Pure socialism assumes a worldwide brotherhood of workers.

The strict pure definition of socialism is "the control of the means of production by the people." I see nothing about a "brotherhood" in that Walt. Do you?

Nations and nationalism are to be swept away.

Hitler saw this in his own version. What do you think he was doing when he tried to conquer the world?

As Andy Card said a couple of days ago

Is he your new authority, Walt? Your new McPherson? All I can say is you sure know how to pick 'em!

the two concepts are at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.

That is simply not so, Walt. His purported spectrum is a mindless construct without factual basis. Try again.