I agree that many great historians have begun as journalists or lawyers. I also believe in looking closely at the primary sources, records and etc. When Mr. DiLorenzo was challenged by myself on several of his statements on civil War attrocities and slavery as an issue of the war, I perceived a very flippant attitude from him. My gut tells me that DiLorenzo is typical of many neo-confederates. I graduated college in Mississippi and debated many of these folks. For the most part the leading (not rank and file) neo-confederates are pushing an agenda (with leftist methods not politics) for limited government by using the Confederacy as a model.
My friends, limited government is a beautiful thing. The problem is they are borrowing Confederate history and twisting it to fit a modern agenda. As a history person, no matter my modern ideology, I find that dangerous. If you do some homework you will find that many of these Neo-confeds are northern born and educated and have little background in either southern culture or Civil War history. As for myself, for the record I am of Northern ancestry but Virginia born and raised. (the yankhater name is a tongue- in-cheek family joke) So I tend to view the war from both sides.
What we have to understand is that as conservatives from the North and South we should not be refighting the Civil War. I have seen that certain political issues and figures from both sides would be embraced by conservatives today. Think about it....anyone who is patriotic enough to care about the Civil War or visit a battlefield is usually a conservative. You will not find filthy dreadlocked, communist, hippie, liberals at a battlefield unless its to watch a spotted owl or hide in the woods and do drugs. Our currant leftist, pro terrorist, lazy, anti-American, communist, multi-culturalist liberal drones you see marching at Berkeley hate Lincoln too. When I see those people hate Lincoln I get real careful not to bash him too much.
Let's be honest. Prior to the Socialist FDR era, most political figures liberal or conservative from the past would seem like a breath of fresh air today. We often make the mistake of taking past issues (the Civil War) and making modern fights out of them amongst conservatives. Again anyone who would be so patriotic as to CARE that much about American freedom and history (no matter if they prefer Lincoln or Lee) is a friend of mine.
If you are a conservative Southerner such as I am, your real enemy is one of these filthy kooks on our own soil that come from Southern college campuses, and southerners such as Clinton and Gore rather than a Yankee good ole boy who places a flag at the Lincoln memorial. We as conservatives look to the past for examples in courage and freedom. Liberals twist history for their own agendas, lie, steal our heroes, bash our Founders, ban our statues, and prop up socialist ranters as heroes.
While it may seem like the neo-Confeds I mention are giving the left a taste of their medicine, I believe it to be a dangerous path. Let us accept our history good and bad. Would you rather have Canada's lame history? At least our side cares about history enough to argue.
The tendency of some leftists to hate The Lincoln is somewhat amusing, and by witnessing their hatred of The Lincoln you should not draw any necessary conclusion of similarity between them and those with the confederate point of view. More likely than not, the Berkleyite hatred of The Lincoln has more to do with hating America. They see that many patriotic persons embrace The Lincoln and therefore reject him as an establishment hero of patriotism.
Among leftist political thinkers and historians this is not the case. Many, many prominent leftists who have studied Lincoln have embraced him as a matter of greatness and political liberation. In modern times leftist historians such as McPherson have carried this to great lengths but it is truly historical and engrained in the development of leftist thought. The Lincoln has had a contingent of adoring fans in communist circles for the last 130 years, not the least among them being Karl Marx himself. The Berzerkley wackos who profess their own Marxism most likely know nothing of this and would probably change their opinions of The Lincoln if they were familiar with their hero Marx's views of the man and his supposed role in proletarian history. Ordinary leftists tend to behave that way - they don't think for themselves and grasp onto whatever they percieve be the most like Marx, or the most radical, or the most anti-America.
Prior to the Socialist FDR era, most political figures liberal or conservative from the past would seem like a breath of fresh air today.
This something I've been saying for a long time. DiLorenzo's turning Lincoln into FDR or LBJ and the Whigs into modern socialists is laughable. The issues and arguments of the 19th century were not the same as today. Even those who are fully in favor of limited and decentralized government may have doubts about whether secession was constitutional or desirable or about whether the Jeffersonian view was always right and desireable.
I think there were no end of good reasons for not being on the same side as Davis or the militant secessionists and fire-eaters and I'm glad that they were unsuccessful, but as in any civil war, good people ended up on both sides. Once fighting started, people had to make choices based on limited knowledge and the prevailing beliefs of the day. They often had to choose the lesser of two evils, and that's not always easy to do, especially when one's friends and relatives have already committed to one side or the other.
Yeah, and they drive BMW's and cut you off on Georgia 400.
Walt
You're old man was right.
...apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Hey yankhater. You left out Rush's "maggot-infested, FM types" from your description of the lefties!