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. 

[Grand Old Partisan]

Sorry, there's no comparison.

[jimt]

If Walt shows up to berate you and/or the author, all you need to know to cut through his erudite arguments is that he voted for Klinton twice. That says it all.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The U.S. Government was at war at the same time, yet our Government carried on as before. Also, no contingency of war prevented Jefferson Davis from appointing federal judges, etc.

[Grand Old Partisan]

What is the Wlat Brigade?

[WhiskeyPapa]

DiLorenzo's work is filled with laughably inaccurate data.

Walt

[Treebeard]

Walt, if he had lived 150 years ago, would have been Lincoln's Lewinsky. He's deeply entrenched in the Lincoln-as-Christ myth and is the non-titular head of a group of similar thinking cut n' pasters on FR.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The end of Slavery - right?

Wrong! The end of the Constitutional Republic!

There is not a nickel's worth of difference in how Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln viewed the nature of the Constitution and the nature of the Union.

Walt

[Grand Old Partisan]

Thanks. Over-veneration of Abraham Lincoln is as much a disservice as trashing him. Democrat historians over-emphasize Lincoln in order to remove him from his proper context as a Republican. I make that point very strongly in my book and presentations.

[Non-Sequitur]

Oh, and I suppose that had nothing to do with the fact that they were AT WAR the whole frickin' time they were in existence, now does it?

A declaration of war gave the Davis regime the OK to ignore their constitution at will? If that is the case when why do you southern supporters complain about what you believe were Lincoln's constitutional violations?

[WhiskeyPapa]

The Confederate did not even pretend to follow their own constitution.

Neither did Lincoln.

Yes he did.

Nothing President Lincoln did was beyond the powers of the president as described in the Constitution.

Walt

[republicanwizard]

Here we go again. I'm ready GOP.

[republicanwizard]

Nonsense.

Jefferson Davis refused to act outside the bounds of the Confederate Constitution, and it brought his government to ruins.

The Founding Fathers did not mean for the Constitution to be a straightjacket to prevent ourselves from destruction. It is why they allowed us to even rewrite the whole thing if need be.

[Treebeard]

It's too early in the year for reruns, but here we go again. Why don't you Jesus H. Lincoln types pool your resources (ha), take a day of leave, assuming you have jobs, and go debate DiLorenzo in an open forum? You and Wlatimir Pootin have both slandered him here, so take your little intellectual jihad on the road.

[republicanwizard]

I regard Lincoln as America's Saviour, in much the same way that Christ was Mankind's Saviour.

[WhiskeyPapa]

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?

Both

How do you reconcile your statement with the fact that Lincoln was pretty sure in his own mind that he would lose the 1864 election? In August, 1864 he was actually asked by the head of the Republican Party to withdraw. Failing that, he was asked to rescind the Emancipation Proclamation to increase his chances of winning. He flatly refused. And Lincoln was a very experienced campaigner, and he had lost a number of elections.

He said, according to [David H. ]Donald, "But now, if he followed their advice, he would have to do without the help of nearly 200,000 black men in the service of the Union. In that case 'we would be compelled to abandon the war in 3 weeks.' Practical considerations aside, there was the moral issue. How could anybody propose 'to return to slavery the black warriors of Port Hudson and Olustee to their masters to conciliate the South?' "I should be damned in time and eternity for so doing,' he told his visitors (Gov. Randall, and Judge Mills, both from Wisconsin). "The world will know that I keep my faith to friends and enemies, come what will.'"

I'd be very glad if you could show that -ever- Lincoln undertook -any- action on behalf of a special interest group.

Walt

[LurkedLongEnough]

ping

[Treebeard]

Seek help. LOTS of it.

[republicanwizard]

If we want to debate idiots, we'll go on the street and find an average Democrat.

[Non-Sequitur]

Why travel when we have so many people here who have swallowed Tommy DiLusional's confederate kool-aid?

[republicanwizard]

Thanks for your advice. Now go put up your Confederate Flag instead of an American one. After all, it was that evil Lincoln who prevented the American flag from being destroyed.