[Congressman Billybob]

When I see items I know to be false from a supposedly scholarly source, I doubt the entire source. For instance, "free blacks" did migrate into the western territories, and did become homesteaders with full rights. For instance, though the movies do not show this, 40% of the US Cavalry in West were blacks.

Also, free blacks had voting rights, including in states which had property ownership requirements. In some of those, the property qualifying the free black to vote was slaves. Check out the US Census from 1790 on, and focus on Virginia, which contained one-third of the entire population in 1790.

As for the transcontinental railroads, there is no doubt that the "robber barons" who built the railroads used their franchise monopolies to make themselves wealthy -- and purchased a number of state legislatures for cash money to obtain those "rights" (since the state legislatures, at the time, elected the members of the US Senate). However, it is equally true that the railroads were absolutely critical to opening up the West -- carrying people and their goods west, and bringing back agricultural products to market.

In short, I know that this book is NOT a scholarly work, but is a screed selling a particular point of view, whether it is true or not, whether it is factually honest or not.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Democrats Dancing to Tunes of Glory?," discussion thread on FR. Article also on ChronWatch.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The Republican Party must stop paying attention to such spiteful nonsense from neo-Confederate loons.

[RebelBanker]

Congressman BillyBob,

Actually, Thomas DiLorenzo is an economist and a college professor, not an historian per se. Thus, his facts are quite well researched and documented and most actually come from sources supportive of Lincoln. Of course you may disagree with his interpretation of these facts, as any reasonable person could this many years after the events.

Your points about free blacks owning property (including slaves) and comprising a significant portion of the US Cavalry in the West are clearly true, but also irrelevant to the point at hand. Property ownership in a southern state over which Lincoln had no control at the time does not establish his support for that right. The "Buffalo Soldiers" were US Colored Regiments sent west AFTER the end of the Civil War (and after Lincoln's death).

The relevance of Dr. DiLorenzo's work is that we as small-government conservatives should be extremely careful in holding Lincoln up as an exemplar of our ideals. Fervent Lincoln admirers freely admit that he was a dictator and that he more than any other President before or since centralized power from the states to the Federal government. This is generally argued as acceptable because it was necessary to preserve the union. I can not debate the effectiveness of his actions (after all, we are still one country) but I would certainly argue against describing Lincoln as any type of conservative.

Your Humble Servant...

[stainlessbanner]

I know that this book is NOT a scholarly work

Expand on that statement - I found it quite well researched and documented. You may also note that the author cites scholars supportive of Lincoln policies in the book. I'm curious have you read it?

[billbears]

Have you read the book or just taking McPhernut's word for it? I also suggest Confederate Constitution of 1861 as another excellent book. Resources such as Carl Sandburg, who wrote for Socialist newspapers in the early 20th century, is not a source one should trust.