Author of the The Real Lincoln to speak TODAY at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

[Lady Eileen]

Washington, DC-area Freepers interested in Lincoln and/or the War Between the States should take note of a seminar held later today on the Fairfax campus of George Mason University:

The conventional wisdom in America is that Abraham Lincoln was a great emancipator who preserved American liberties.  In recent years, new research has portrayed a less-flattering Lincoln that often behaved as a self-seeking politician who catered to special interest groups. So which is the real Lincoln? 

On Wednesday, April 16, Thomas DiLorenzo, a former George Mason University professor of Economics, will host a seminar on that very topic. It will highlight his controversial but influential new book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.  In the Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo exposes the conventional wisdom of Lincoln as based on fallacies and myths propagated by our political leaders and public education system. 

The seminar, which will be held in Rooms 3&4 of the GMU Student Union II, will start at 5:00 PM.  Copies of the book will be available for sale during a brief autograph session after the seminar. 

[rebelyell]

So that's what you call that fantasy-drivel? Uhh....o.k.

[Ditto]

But if DiLusional had quoted the President in context then that wouldn't fit his agenda, now would it?

And it wouldn't fit SCDogs pre-concieved notions and Lost Cause Myth inspired hatreds either, would it? DiLusional simply tells the Lost Causers what they want to hear --- kind of like Baghdad Bob and the Arab media.

[stand watie]

SADLY, ole' WP does NOT understand most of the off-point, silly drivel that he copies from sites on the worldwidewierd. the rest of what he posts is fiction.

scalawags are like that.

FRee dixie,sw

[WhiskeyPapa]

Lincoln destroyed the Constitution that was in place.

Not according to George Washington.

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

George Washington, July, 1796

The Constitution contains a conflict resolution system -- the anendment process. The secessionists ignored that because they knew democratic and lawful processes did not serve their ends. That they could be defended today is just grotesque.

It is also a grotesque misreading (or failure to read) of the history to say they had morality or right on their side.

They were called damned traitors at the time, and they were damned traitors.

I'm not sure gnorance is an excuse.

Walt

[rebelyell]

Yes, you are right. If he could only find a revisionist website proclaiming dishonest abe to be the messiah, he would be happily cut and pasting that nonsense here. The truth has never mattered to that crowd....they are not interested in it. It gets in the way of their opinions.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Deo vindice!

Whenever I see this, I always think of the line in "Henry V":

"Now soldiers march away, and how pleaseth God, dispose the day!"

Rebel soldiers didn't please God.

Walt

[rebelyell]

We are supposed to believe that God has told you this in one of your talks?
You really are a broken record.
Thankfully, the truth on the great tyrant is coming out and being recognised by folks all over the world. Wasn't it so much easier when you marxists were writing all the history books? lol
The facade is crumbling and the emperor is being exposed little by little. The truth will set you free if you will only seek it.

[SCDogPapa]

"We are supposed to believe that God has told you this in one of your talks?"

ROTFL,,,That's a good one.

[Corin Stormhands]

Do you live near there?

No. It's up near DeeCee. A good two hours for me.

[republicanwizard]

Well, I'm back to argue with you Neo-Confederates.

I'm just going to ask you a question. The South was acting outside the bounds of the Constitution. What should have compelled Lincoln to follow it if the South wouldn't? Should he have followed it in the manner you wanted, and have destroyed the country for which the Constitution was written?

[Corin Stormhands]

I guess that is what I do in these threads -- provide context.

Wlat did not have context with this thread. (nor did his hero have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky)

[republicanwizard]

You sad that already Corin.

I don't care if you do not like it. The words of the Second Inaugural are quite extraordinary.

Besides, if you believed in God so much, then you could never be on the Confederate side, which embodied slavery, a perversion of all that is good and just.

Save the religious moralizing for others. The man who wrote the conclusion to the Second Inaugural saved this country from EVIL itself, just as this President is doing again.

[republicanwizard]

Why don't you go discuss Abraham Lincoln with your idol, David Duke? There is someone with whom you will agree. Only problem is you'll have to do time.

[rebelyell]

Where did the Constitution say there was no right to secession? Was the compact not voluntary? Per the 10th Amendment, the rights not delegated to the collective government fell back upon the states...and that included the right to withdraw from the union.

I am afraid your view of history is tainted by ignorance. You are not alone...millions of Americans have been taught a history that did not happen.

[republicanwizard]

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I really don't see the right to leave the union here.

[Sequoya]

All tyrants claim that necessity makes unlawful actions lawful just as Lincoln did in the quote you posted. Saddam claimed gassing the Kurds was necessary because they were revolting against the government.

You and the rest of the left love Lincoln because he followed your philosophy that the ends justify the means. You like the fact that he destroyed the union and the Constitution so you justify his actions. He meant well so whatever he did is OK with you.

The left still operates on that premise today. Socialism is good because the socialists mean well even though they make matters worse with their actions. Clinton meant well so his actions are excused.

Your defense of the dictator is no different. After WWII most Germans excused Hitler’s actions because he got them out of the depression. The average German only criticized Hitler’s overreaching military actions.

The same is true with the Lincoln apologists. Lincoln’s destruction of the union and the Constitution ended slavery so is actions are excused. It is one of the great failings of all socialists that they put more value on their perception of someone’s motives than on the acts or the consequences of the acts.

Now, how about quoting where that law is that makes it legal for nonresidents to vote in an election or for the military to watch you mark your ballot? Tell us where that law is. Also quote where the Constitution gives the president that right. I’m sure Clinton or Algore would love to know about that part of the Constitution.

Face it Walt, you are an apologist for a dictator and a tyrant and can’t stand it when you are exposed.

[republicanwizard]

Section 4 of Article 4 reads,

"Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

The two clauses were met. In essence, the states were in internal rebellion.

[Non-Sequitur]

Was the compact not voluntary?

Doesn't a state need the approval of a majority of the existing states through a vote in both houses of Congress before it can join the Union? Why shouldn't the same approval be required to leave? According to the Constitution Congress alone has the authority to admit a state, and congressional approval is needed for combining or dividing states or any change in their border. Why would removing a state from the body politic be any different?

Per the 10th Amendment, the rights not delegated to the collective government fell back upon the states...and that included the right to withdraw from the union.

Not quite. Only rights not reserved to the United State or prohibited to the states by the Constitution can be reserved to the states. Creating or changing the status of a state is clearly a right reserved to the United States. Acting in a unilateral manner where the interests of other states may be impacted is clearly a power prohibited to the states. Unilateral secession as practiced by the confederate states was illegal under the Constitution.

[WhiskeyPapa]

That's all a lot of crap. You've got something stuck in your craw, but you won't say what.

Quote the record.

But you tried that once, and it didn't work very well, did it?

[republicanwizard]

The South violated everyone of these requirements:

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.