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

Oh you stop that. They were having such a good time with their fairey tale about saint lincoln.

There is no way a Marxist could have had positive words for Lincoln, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Read it and weep.

"Sir: We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery. From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class." - Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln, January 28, 1865 (Collected Works of Karl Marx, Vol 20)

" It is not our part to call words of sorrow and horror, while the heart of two worlds heaves with emotion. Even the sycophants who, year after year, and day by day, stick to their Sisyphus work of morally assassinating Abraham Lincoln, and the great Republic he headed, stand now aghast at this universal outburst of popular feeling, and rival with each other to strew rhetorical flowers on his open grave. They have now at last found out that he was a man, neither to be browbeaten by adversity, nor intoxicated by success, inflexibly pressing on to his great goal, never compromising it by blind haste, slowly maturing his steps, never retracing them, carried away by no surge of popular favour, disheartened by no slackening of the popular pulse, tempering stern acts by the gleams of a kind heart, illuminating scenes dark with passion by the smile of humour, doing his titanic work as humbly and homely as Heaven-born rulers do little things with the grandiloquence of pomp and state; in one word, one of the rare men who succeed in becoming great, without ceasing to be good. Such, indeed, was the modesty of this great and good man, that the world only discovered him a hero after he had fallen a martyr." - Karl Marx to Andrew Johnson, May 13, 1865 (Collected Works of Karl Marx, Vol 20)

"The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world." - Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln, January 25, 1865 (Collected Works of Karl Marx, Vol 20)

"Since the Civil War, in which the Southern States were conquered, against all historical logic and common sense, the American people have been in a condition of political and popular decay. The beginnings of a great new social order based on the principle of slavery and inequality were destroyed by that war, and with it also the embryo of a future truly great America." Adolph Hitler, 1933

That quote is a matter of hearsay with no corroboration that it ever occurred. It was reported to have been said after the fact by another who claimed to have been in Hitler's presence, quoting him.

Here is one thing that Hitler is indeed known to have said:

"[In America] it is impossible to speak of original sovereignty in regard to the majority of the states. Many of them were not included in the federal complex until long after it had been established. The states that make up the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories, more or less, formed for technical administrative purposes, their boundaries having in many cases been fixed in the mapping office. Originally these states did not and could not possess sovereign rights of their own. Because it was the Union that created most of the so-called states." - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf volume II, 1926

Seems that Hitler's view of the union corresponds nicely with Lincoln's. Wonder why that is?

Oh, call on me, call on me! Is it because both were petty tyrants addicted to power?!

To violate the constitution was within their constitutional authority?

No, but to block judicial appointments from occurring was. Or do you not remember the events of only a few months ago when the Dems were in control of the current senate? Judicial benches all over the country sat vacant for over a year, and many are still vacant, because the senate blocked any effort to fill them. Now it was wrong of them to do so, and we were right to complain, but it cannot be denied that the act of doing so is a right of theirs under the Constitution.

Southerners are the most patriotic of men...

Give me a break. People in the south have no monopoly on love for this country.

I work for a black/female company with a heavy family influence. In March, the owner of this company had a potluck to celebrate Black History Month. The theme food was "soul", and I brought Peach Cobbler. Our potluck went as follows, is rather long, but leads into a question I have about about Abe Lincoln:

Friday 2/28/03:

We were having a potluck to celebrate Black History Month, and the requirement was to try and bring soul food. At about 12:30 all employees were called downstairs as the festivities were to begin.

Those who got there early enough got a chair at a large conference table, and the remainder were standing. I had a seat at the table. The owner was present at the front of the room and we waited for the remainder of the employees to join us. Our President, David Burcham, and our Senior V.President, Jim Webber, were also present and are both white.

We were waiting on the sister of the owner and the H.R. Manager (both black), who had to be retrieved, and took seats at the front of the room also.

A co-worker (black) welcomed everybody and informed us that we were going to view a short video. No one knew what the subject matter was going to be. The video was, in my opinion, about 10-15 minutes long and showed an anonymous female interviewer asking David Burcham, our President, pertinent racial questions about his "white male" views on working in a minority company and regarding affirmative action. I was angry from the onset as I felt it put Mr. Burcham on the spot and that the questions were racist in nature. Mr. Burcham looked visibly "in-the-hot-seat" on this video and sheepish in our conference room. I felt manipulated and put into a one-sided political situation.

Being a conservative female in a majority of liberals, I keep my political viewpoints to myself, except for rare occasions when low-key debates have come up with several co-workers. (Not usually initiated by me.)

After the video was over, the owner stated that "Mr. Burcham was not AWARE of the questions that were going to be asked of him beforehand, and didn't he do a great job!" (I saw it as a dirty trick for her political agenda.) Mr. Burcham sat there quietly.

David, on several occasions, made eye contact with me. I don't know if I should have read into this or not, but felt that either he could sense my uncomfortable demeanor, or was gauging my reaction to his position in all of this.

Jim Webber and David Burcham then left the room briefly, but returned with Jim (a white man) dressed in Native African garb, and David dressed as Abraham Lincoln. I had no idea where this was going.

We were told to dig in to the food and, after we got our plates and sat down, Jan announced she was going to use her "ebonics" if we didn't mind, and many laughed at this. Jan uses ebonics in all her little presentations. She then stated we were going to have a "quiz", and if you answered her questions correctly you could win money! So while we ate, she shot off the first question: "Who knows what Article 15 of the Constitution states?" Our Marketing Director(white) answered her correctly. I believe he received $20. She then asked another question about the constitution, in which another Marketing employee (white)answered correctly.

I do not remember the rest of the questions from that point on as I was so uncomfortable and angry. The discussion was turning to affirmative action and support for it, while Jan moved around the room asking people their personal feelings on what a specific amendment meant to them. One new gal didn't know what to say and Jan looked at her and said "No one told you about me, did they baby?" But, the new gal just answered what the others had answered, and Jan had made a comment about how important it is to know our history so that it doesn't repeat itself. She was referring to Slavery.

Soon after, Jan asked David to read from a book up at the front of the room. David had the book opened and proceeded to read, and even voiced an accent as perhaps Abe Lincoln may have sounded. The passage was with respect to Abe Lincoln's belief that Slaves would never be equal to whites, that they shouldn't have children between races and that they would always be inferior to whites. My immediate Supervisor, Patricia Bryant, lost composure and stated "I think he was an idiot" referring to Abe Lincoln.

I had a difficult time containing my anger and sat for only a few minutes more. I finished my food, got up to throw my plate away, went and retrieved some dessert and left the room as unconspicuously as possible.

I'm still reeling from the policial fervor of Jan's presentation and heard laughter from downstairs as I sat at my desk trying to decide what action to take. I was extremely offended by this show of indoctrination and found it hugely inappropriate.

Question: Can anyone explain the passage referred to about Lincoln's claims that blacks were inferior, shouldn't mate with whites, etc., etc.? I wish I knew the name of the book from which our President read from, but I don't.

Thank You for being patient enough to read through this story.

People in the south have no monopoly on love for this country.

That may be so, but it is also true that the regions to the northeast and to the left of the south have disproportionately large numbers of America-haters when compared to the normal regions of the country.

You marxists aren't familiar with honour but it means something down here.

So honor in the South means that a young man can sneak up behind an old man and beat him nearly to death with a cain?

Up here, young men don't beat up old men, and men fight face to face.

Lincoln did indeed make many such comments. He once stated his reason for keeping the slaves out of the territories was to preserve their lands for white people.

The quote you probably heard is the following, which is from one of his debates with Stephen Douglas:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Abraham Lincoln, 8/17/1858

sherman and his hooligans showed us how your real men waged war on defenseless women, children and slaves.

So honor in the South means that a young man can sneak up behind an old man and beat him nearly to death with a cain?

According to historical codes of honor, honor with peers was sought in the situation that means of recourse was a duel. To drunkards, dolts, and other low lifes of society, means of recourse was a beating with a cane.

Senator Sumner = a low life of society, therefore the means of seeking recourse for honor with him was by beating him with a cane.

Indeed, had Brooks challenged him to a duel he would have likely declined like a coward.

You have made up your mind about Spooner's importance. Most Americans in his own time and most scholars since would disagree. Those who are interested can consult the sources and make up their own minds. I've no doubt that for some people the history of American political thought in the 20th century couldn't be written without reference to Murray Rothbard, but for most Americans and most specialists it can and is. The cases are similar.

I don't think Tim Robbins wants to bomb New York or Susan Sarandon wants to make Islam our official religion, but people have charged that they give support and comfort to our enemies and make common cause with them. You yourself have made extensive use of "guilt by association" tactics in your posts, so you understand the idea. I don't argue that Spooner is "guilty by association," though, just that associations between Spooner and neo-confederatism do exist and shouldn't be ignored. Spooner should not be represented as a typical or important abolitionist without serious consideration of the anarchist views that differentiated him from other, and more important abolitionists.

Spooner defended the "right to secession" and attacked unionist doctrines and efforts to fight back. He may not have agreed with everything the Confederates wanted to do, and may not have been willing to defend them from rebels in their own camp, but he certainly did write an apologia for secession, and hence, to all practical purposes, for the Confederacy. To be sure, he was anti-slavery, but the neo-confederate argument is that the war was not about slavery and that one could be pro-Confederate and anti-slavery, so this hardly counts as an objection.

The publication of Spooner's writings in De Bow's was an early milestone in the development of neo-confederate ideology and argument, and the move away from slavery to other justifications for the rebellion. There certainly are real contradictions between Spooner's anarchist denial of state sovereignty and the secessionists advocacy of that doctrine, but neo-confederate theory is rife with such contradictions. Intellectual ammunition is valued more than consistent thought, and Spooner provided Confederate apologists with such ammunition, if they chose to use it.

Spooner had no problem sending his writing to a pro-secession journal and giving them permission to publish "No Treason" and they had no problem publishing what he sent in and asking him for permission to reprint the pamphlet (see the headnote to Part One. The reference to the court in Boston in the footnote to Part Two may be some sort of copyright notice. Someone sent the pamphlet to De Bow's and that someone may have been Spooner himself. De Bow's didn't dig it out of court documents).

Spooner and De Bow's may not have agreed with each other on all particulars but neither had any trouble about using the other. That an abolitionist was willing to send an article to what had been the most prominent pro-slavery journal and was still unrepentant about secession and White supremacy suggests that he was not a typical abolitionist. Hair splitting and invective may obscure this, but those who may be interested or concerned may judge for themselves.

Spooner's article is far more -- or less -- than a scholarly study of the meaning of treason. Unbiased observers may see that by reading the attack on "the North" at the beginning of the excerpt in De Bow's. Spooner's support for the "right to secession" was precisely what unregenerate Confederates wanted, as is the reference to United States citizenship as "political slavery" and the United States government as a "tyranny." The anarchist sentiments and doctrines that Spooner passionately expresses in "No Treason" differentiate it from a sober, scholarly study of what treason is. Heavy on rhetoric and abstract theory, "No Treason #1" is light on serious constitutional analysis. I also doubt legal scholars are usually so free with exclamation points. "No Treason #2" makes more mention of the Constitution, but it too is heavy on anarchist theories and light on documentation.

Spooner's ideas were present at the creation of the neo-Confederate apologia. As a precursor and foundation of the Rockwellite argument, Spooner can't be taken as an unbiased outside arbiter of the controversy.

What you think is clear, and I hope that's also true of what I think. It's up to those who are interested in this question to make up their own minds. Links to the relevant articles are here. It's important, though, to read other articles from DeBow's to get a clear view of just who and what Spooner was flirting with.

If you had read my post carefully, you would see that I readily admitted that Jaffa was a distinguished Lincoln scholar, but other historians who aren't closely identified with ideological camps haven't yet weighed in on Di Lorenzo's book. When they do it will be the end of DiLorenzo's book among thinking people, but because a craving to believe is at the root of his appeal, it probably won't affect his sales.

Good post!! Point made!

"defenseless women, children and slaves"

You left out the old men!

sherman and his hooligans showed us how your real men waged war on defenseless women, children and slaves.

So you're telling me that Johnston and Hood only had women, children and slaves under their command? That Sherman sure did kick the crap out of them.

According to historical codes of honor, honor with peers was sought in the situation that means of recourse was a duel. To drunkards, dolts, and other low lifes of society, means of recourse was a beating with a cane.

In other words, Butler didn't have enough balls to challenge the old man? He had to sneak up behind him and brain him with a cane.

That may be so, but it is also true that the regions to the northeast and to the left of the south have disproportionately large numbers of America-haters when compared to the normal regions of the country.

Show me some stats on that. How different is Atlanta from San Francisco? How is Miami different than New York? How is some rural county in Alabama different in terms of duty, honor and love of country than a rural county in Pennsylvania or Ohio?

Don't go patting yourself on the back too damn much. If you hung out where I do every day and claimed being southern made you a better American, you would likely find yourself lying flat on your back. Matter of fact, stop by my Legion post and tell the guys there how much more patriotic the south is.

...but it cannot be denied that the act of doing so is a right of theirs under the Constitution.

Even if in doing so they were ignoring a constitutional requirement for an entire branch of government? Like I said, it's a neat trick you accept. They trampled on the constitution by refusing to accept their constitutional requirement to staff a supreme court. All aided and abetted by Davis himself. After all, he was within his constitutional power to use a recess appointment. But why appoint something that you have no respect for and might just get in your way? Ya gotta love it.