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. 

[stainlessbanner]

When I see comments like these, I know I'm the right side of the discussion.

[republicanwizard]

Are you another anti-Lincoln Freeper?

[Sequoya]

Davis’ refusal to name a judiciary was the act of a tyrant. His institution of the draft was also indefensible. Usurpation of the rights of the states was a mistake that would have assured that the Confederacy could never last as a group if they won the war. The states would have left the Confederacy to fully independent after the war and there may have been additional bloodshed. I’m not sure that Davis would have been any more ready to let the states leave the Confederacy than Lincoln was to let them leave the union.

Davis gets the blame because he was president, (and to a point rightly so) but the worst thing the South did was secede before trying to end slavery by having the states reimburse slave owners for their loss. Slavery was doomed any way. Reimbursement for their lost property would have settled the issue with out bloodshed. Firebrands like Davis never even tried to negotiate that option.

Secession should be a last resort not jumped into without a plan and a real effort to resolve the issues. Davis was too ready to leave the union and that was his first biggest mistake.

To glorify Davis is no more reasonable than to glorify Lincoln. Davis seems to me to be as flawed as Lincoln.

[Sequoya]

Hamilton wrote Federalist 81 and was eloquent about the sovereignty of the states.

Jefferson was still in France during the Constitutional Convention but they relied heavily on his previous writings. Jefferson was very influential in the formation of the Constitution even though he wasn’t there for the debates.

But many people don’t like Jefferson as much as other founders and I find that interesting. Jefferson is one of my favorites. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Sam Adams, and Patrick Henry are my favorites.

[4CJ]

Thanks for the ping. Kudos to Dr. DiLorenzo for an excellent book.

[billbears]

Good grief, looking at the list of your heros, I'm suprised you call yourself a Republican at all. But then again, today's Republicans are for big government aren't they? Just like the lincoln.

[Non-Sequitur]

Are you another anti-Lincoln Freeper?

My dear wizard, stainless is one of the foremost Lincoln foes on this forum. He is sothron born, sothron bred. And when he dies he'll be sothron dead. A worthy and capable opponent. Underestimate him at your peril.

[Non-Sequitur]

Davis gets the blame because he was president, (and to a point rightly so) but the worst thing the South did was secede before trying to end slavery by having the states reimburse slave owners for their loss.

One can hardly blame Davis for that. In order for an end to slavery, compensated or otherwise, to succeed there would have had to be a desire for slavery to end. That did not exist down south. Southern leadership, including Davis, were firm in their belief that slavery was an institution to be enjoyed by their children and grandchildren. They saw slavery as the foundation for their wealth and way of life. It was an institution to be protected, not ended. Even if protecting it meant taking the southern states into rebellion. You may well say that slavery was doomed, and looking back over 140 years it may well have been. But I submit that there wasn't a single southern leader in 1861 who shared that view. No plan to end slavery would have met with any support.

[Non-Sequitur]

Jefferson was very influential in the formation of the Constitution even though he wasn’t there for the debates.

I'm currently reading "What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States" by James F. Simon. In it Simon points out that Jefferson played no part in the creation of the Constitution. In fact his initial reaction to Madison's creation was decided unenthusiastic, and he was always a reluctant supporter.

[rebelyell]

I'm still waiting on my reparations. My family had property stolen by the federal government and we have never been reimbursed. When will they make it right?

I'm not holding my breath...these same marxists steal 32% of what I earn...why should they do the right thing? I would love to have the opportunity to thank the tyrant from Illinois for what he created. We are still paying for his transgressions against the Constitution and the people of The South.

[Sequoya]

There is no way to know or prove it now, but I submit the reason there was no interest in compensation in return for ending slavery was because Davis and other leaders were using the issue for political advantage just as Lincoln was.

Without the slavery issue there wasn’t enough southern sentiment for secession. The tariff issue was festering but would not cause secession alone. Slavery was the hot button Davis and the other secessionist leaders needed to get the secession they wanted. It was also the issue Lincoln needed to justify war to stop secession.

It is hard to sit here 140 years later and say that the southern states was the only people in the world who wouldn’t accept compensation for their loss instead for fighting a war. The southern leaders should have proposed this rather than pushing for secession.

[Sequoya]

Jefferson's earlier wrightings were very influential in the writing of the constitution. Jefferson was supicious of government power. That is consistant in all his writing. He was as supportive of the constitution as he was of any government.

[republicanwizard]

Interesting. You cite two people in particular who didn't believe that the Constitution was a good idea. Sam Adams and Patrick Henry opposed ratification. Maybe then they were right; Lincoln should have not felt constricted by a bad document.

[republicanwizard]

I'm glad you think that poorly of me.

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm glad you think that poorly of me.

Poorly of you? Not at all! It's just that stainlessbanner is a friend and adversary of long standing. The post was meant more as a tweak at him than a slam at you. Sorry you took it wrong. My apology.

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm still waiting on my reparations. My family had property stolen by the federal government and we have never been reimbursed. When will they make it right?

I suggest that we take your reparations and pay them to the slave reparations people. Their claim makes just as much sense as yours.

[rebelyell]

Actually, their claim makes much less sense than mine. I guess you're not familiar with a "taking" by government...esp. when the government is one you blindly support, despite their illegal actions.

Do you have clintoon kneepads, too?

[Non-Sequitur]

There is no way to know or prove it now, but I submit the reason there was no interest in compensation in return for ending slavery was because Davis and other leaders were using the issue for political advantage just as Lincoln was.

But defense of slavery WAS the issue leading to secession. It was by far the single most important reason for the southern rebellion. No other reason has a fraction of the importance given to slavery in secession declarations, in speeches by secession commissioners, in editorials supporting secession. To say that slavery was merely an excuse is to ignore the obvious.

It is hard to sit here 140 years later and say that the southern states was the only people in the world who wouldn’t accept compensation for their loss instead for fighting a war.

In almost every case where slavery was ended, it was done by government action and in the face of determined opposition from the slave holders themselves. That is true for compensated emancipation as well as uncompensated. Why should we believe the south would have been any different? They had more to lose.

[Non-Sequitur]

Do you have clintoon kneepads, too?

Attempted insults are easier than logical reasoning I guess. As for your bogus claim, it is just that. Bogus. The 14th Amendment did away with any claims for compensation for property lost while supporting the rebellion. Your grandmama's china falls under that category.

[rebelyell]

So I take it you are still wearing those clintoon kneepads?! lol

Please tell me you're not a socialist like wlat!