Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SCDogPapa
The following is why they don't like DiLorenzo. He tells it like it was.

Actually you have shown, unintentionally I assume, why we find DiLorenzo so ridiculous. If it were not for false quotes, partial quotes, and misquotes he would have no quotes at all. Take, for example, your quote from the letter to Salmon Chase. Taken out of context, as it is, one might believe that President Lincoln thought his actions illegal. Look at the quote in full:

"Knowing your great anxiety that the emancipation proclamation shall now be applied to those certain parts of Virginia and Louisiana which were exempted from it last January, I state briefly what appear to me to be difficulties in the way of such a step. The original proclamation has no Constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure. The exemptions were made because the military necessity did not apply to the exempted localities. Nor does that necessity apply to them now any more than it did then-- If I take the step must I not do so, without the argument of military necessity, and so, without any argument, except the one that I think the measure politically expedient, and morally right? Would I not thus give up all footing upon Constitution or law? Would I not thus be in the boundless field of absolutism? Could this pass unnoticed, or unresisted? Could it fail to be perceived that without any further stretch, I might do the same in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri; and even change any law in any state?"

President Lincoln is not arguing against the legality of the Emancipation Proclamation in areas it applied to, he is pointing out that he could not Constitutionally apply it to areas where military necessity did not require it. To end slavery in those territories, as Chase wanted him to do, would require a Constitutional amendment. The same 13th Amendment that Lincoln would work so hard to pass through Congress and send to the states. But if DiLusional had quoted the President in context then that wouldn't fit his agenda, now would it?

93 posted on 04/16/2003 7:51:38 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
"Actually you have shown, unintentionally I assume, why we find DiLorenzo so ridiculous. "

Non, I did not realize I was quoting Dilorenzo. I pulled all of that off a site last year. During that time, I did not copy a source for stuff I posted. You and a WP, taught me a lesson about being able to provide a sourse. Since then when I copy something, I make sure to provide a source. So if called I can at least provide it.

As far as his book, I have not read it. Thanks for the full quote.

130 posted on 04/16/2003 9:25:42 AM PDT by SCDogPapa (In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
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.

142 posted on 04/16/2003 10:34:06 AM PDT by Ditto (You are free to form your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson