Replies

There is an interesting book about Lincoln that is worth reading with a forward by Walter E. Williams titled, "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Almost as interesting as the view of Lincoln presented by DiLorenzo is the ruckus raised by the attack dogs unleashed on DiLorenzo for daring to question the deification of Lincoln.

My only criticism of DiLorenzo's book is his equating Lincoln's extreme protectionism with the reasonable use of tariffs. Lincoln was a brazen whore for the money interests and used the tariff in a way that would be an inspiration to Hugo Chavez.

I have always wondered why the states who voluntarily formed the union couldn't secede. After reading DiLorenzo's book, I now consider the civil war a war of northern aggression and rank Lincoln as the most destructive president to our constitutional republic, followed by Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Nixon. Had the south been able to ratify their confederate constitution we might have a more conservative government today and certainly a less centralized government.

"Had the south been able to ratify their confederate constitution, we might have a more conservative government today and certainly a less centralized government."

Actually, the South would have been nothing more than a Baptist Banana Republic. And the North would be a second-tier industrialized nation, like France is now.

Tariffs and other taxes were increased beyond what Lincoln had wanted because of the expenses of the war.

DiLorenzo is no historian. He doesn't bother to study just how people thought in the past. He simply imposes his own conclusions on what happened. He collects every scrap of possible evidence -- proven or dubious -- and ignores whatever contradicts his point of view. He's also a monstrously bad writer.

Go here for a list of criticisms of DiLorenzo. If you're still taken in by that charlatan, I pity you.

I have always wondered why the states who voluntarily formed the union couldn't secede.

Perhaps because the states didn't voluntarily form anything? With the exception of the first 13 states the states were admitted. They were allowed in, and only after obtaining the permission of the majority of the existing states as expressed through a vote of their members in Congress. Since they needed the approval of the existing parties to join why is it so hard to believe that the same would be needed to leave?

Had the south been able to ratify their confederate constitution we might have a more conservative government today and certainly a less centralized government.

Doubtful. Davis ignored his constitution at will. His constitution required a supreme court, yet one was never established. It explicitly outlawed protectionist tarifss yet one was implemented in May 1860. He taxed, drafted, nationalized, and seized private property at will. Hardly the conservative government you yearn for.

Anyone who relies of DiLorenzo alone to form his beliefs on the War of Southern Rebellion is depending on a single, increadibly biased source for their information. I suggest you expand your reading horizons a bit.

After reading DiLorenzo's book, I now consider the civil war a war of northern aggression and rank Lincoln as the most destructive president to our constitutional republic, followed by Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Nixon.

Reading DiLorenzo trying to understand Lincoln and the Civil War would be the same as watching a Michael Moore movie to understand George Bush and the War on Terror. And if anything, even Moore does not distort facts as badly as DiLorenzo did in his "Real Lincoln."

DiLorenzo is a total nut case.

If you are really interested in Lincoln and the Civil War, I'd suggest you expand your reading list.