Replies

It is good to have a well-defined target. I'd like to read the speeches in question and then respond to your contention. Are they in one place on the web?

Every word known to have been spoken or written by Lincoln before he became president is available at http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/aboutinfo.html

Oh, and is this a direct quote: "Lincoln revealed his single-minded devotion to the corrupt Whig economic agenda"....

DiLorenzo, from page 54 of the book: "Lincoln was always a Whig, and was almost single-mindedly devoted to the Whig agenda-protectionism, government control of the money supply through a nationalized banking system, and government subsidies for railroad, shipping and canal-building businesses ("internal improvements").

Or is this more like it: "In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda."

Obviously "revealed his single-minded devotion to the corrupt Whig economic agenda" is very much NOT the same thing as: "made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda" don't you agree?

Well, yes, these two completely unsubstantiated and false statements are different. One is a false instance supporting the false general claim.

Let any honest reader peruse this column, and say that you have misrepresented anything!

BTW, is does misquote, as though directly quoting, you and me.

DiLorenzo's first response to DQ and rdf

Richard F.

Below are two fascinating letters from Lincoln in 1859 and 1860 on the tariff. Particularly interesting is the comment that he judges the issue to be best left at rest until the opponents of a tariff shall change their minds. I would be most interested in the opinion of fair-minded persons as top whether these letters are consistent with DiLorenzo's account of Lincoln's ambition to implement the Whig economic agenda as his chief political goal.

Letter to Dr. Edward Wallace Clinton - Oct 11, 1859

My dear Sir: I am here just now attending court. Yesterday, before I left Springfield, your brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff views, and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject. I was an old Henry Clay-Tariff-Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other.

I have not since changed my views. I believe yet, if we could have a moderate, carefully adjusted protective tariff, so far acquiesced in as not to be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles, changes, and uncertainties, it would be better for us. Still it is my opinion that just now the revival of that question will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it.

I have not thought much on the subject recently, but my general impression is that the necessity for a protective tariff will ere long force its old opponents to take it up; and then its old friends can join in and establish it on a more firm and durable basis. We, the Old Whigs, have been entirely beaten out of the tariff question, and we shall not be able to reestablish the policy until the absence of it shall have demonstrated the necessity for it in the minds of men heretofore opposed to it. With this view, I should prefer to not now write a public letter on the subject. I therefore wish this to be considered confidential. I shall be very glad to receive a letter from you.

Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, May 12, 1860.

My dear Sir: Your brother, Dr. W. S. Wallace, shows me a letter of yours in which you request him to inquire if you may use a letter of mine to you in which something is said upon the tariff question. I do not precisely remember what I did say in that letter, but I presume I said nothing substantially different from what I shall say now.

In the days of Henry Clay, I was a Henrys-tariff man, and my views have undergone no material change upon that subject. I now think that the tariff question ought not to be agitated in the Chicago convention, but that all should be satisfied on that point with a presidential candidate whose antecedents give assurance that he would neither seek to force a tariff law by executive influence, nor yet to arrest a reasonable one by veto or otherwise. Just such a candidate I desire shall be put in nomination. I really have no objection to these views being publicly known, but I do wish to thrust no letter before the public now upon any subject. Save me from the appearance of obtrusion, and I do not care who sees this or my former letter.

A. Lincoln

We are moving in circles here. I'll concede, as I have already, some liberty on the part of DiLorenzo. But I will also offer that what I have seen here and at the DF website is, shall we say, contorted, at times.

However, I would like to read your initial piece attacking DiLorenzo. Is it at your website?

(btw Richard, the only reason I moved the quotation marks was my intention to make the passage read more clearly. I doubt anyone but you noticed and it didn't matter. And I certainly did not mean to mislead. Do not attempt your pedantry on me if you expect civilized discourse)

David,

I think you've reduced the falsehood charges to a perfect and lucid fromula here:

One2many writes, with my clarifications and numbers in brackets,:

1] "In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda."

2] Obviously "revealed his single-minded devotion to the corrupt Whig economic agenda" is very much NOT the same thing as: 1] " [in the debates] made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda" don't you agree?

And you reply, with a few insertions from me ...

Well, yes, these two completely unsubstantiated and false statements are different. One [#1 above]is a false instance supporting the [other, #2 above, which is a] false general claim.

The is the summation for the prosecution.

Comments, anyone?

Richard F.

Very useful site you provided URL for:

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/aboutinfo.html

Ironically, the very first result from my search using the words FREEDOM SLAVES took me to an 1832 speech to the people of Sangamo County. I don't see anything in the speech that has a thing to do with slavery but it has everything to do with "internal improvements" thus buttressing DiLorenzo's viewpoint, albeit somewhat tangentially, and not your own.

One thing I did note was the seeming "plasticity" with which the early Ape views "the law":

"In cases of extreme necessity, there could always be means found to cheat the law; while in all other cases it would have its intended effect. I would favor the passage of a law on this subject which might not be very easily evaded. Let it be such that the labor and difficulty of evading it could only be justified in cases of greatest necessity."

I am struck by how much that sounds like our own era's Caligula from Arkansaw and I, for one, look forward to a more comprehensive scrutiny of this "great man" of yours! Thanks again for the link!