Posted on 04/02/2002 9:45:23 PM PST by VinnyTex
On page 54 of "The Real Lincoln," we read:
Roy Basler, the editor of Lincoln's Collected Works, commented that Lincoln barely mentioned slavery before 1854, and when he did, "his words lacked effectiveness."
The citation for this sentence in the notes reads:
Roy P. Basler, ed., Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings (New York: Da Capo Press, 1946), p. 23.
In his initial column addressing rdf and me, DiLorenzo made a version of this same claim:
These ill-mannered scolds claim that Lincoln was obsessed with the issue of slavery from 1854 on. But that would be news to the editor of "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, who wrote that Lincoln barely ever mentioned the topic prior to 1854 and even then, he did not seem at all sincere. "His words lacked effectiveness," writes Basler.
The text in Basler occurs in an essay entitled: "Lincoln's Development as a Writer." And indeed the burden of the essay is to consider just that, the variations in quality and manner of Lincoln's use of words. It is not an essay evaluating Lincoln's political doctrine at all, its purposes or its truth, etc. When Basler does comment on such matters, it is to trace the correlation of Lincoln's themes and the excellence of his language -- he sees Lincoln's language elevate when he turns FROM the issues of Whiggery, in the early 1850's TO the issue of slavery. And he sees Lincoln's language yet more elevated when Lincoln finally turns to the theme of Union, as he approaches the Presidency.
So DiLorenzo's use of this essay as an essay on Lincoln's political thought is questionable to begin with. But that's not the real whopper.
DiLorenzo claims that Basler claims "Lincoln barely ever mentioned the topic" of slavery "prior to 1854." But Basler makes no such claim, at least not in the vicinity of the quoted passage.
But wait, it gets better. DiLorenzo says Basler says, "even then, he did not seem at all sincere."
What Basler is actually discussing in the paragraph which DiLorenzo cites is the Dred Scott speech of 1857. His words have nothing to do with Lincoln's "post 1854" period as a whole. And further, they do not even say that Lincoln's words on slavery lack effectiveness simply. Here is what Basler actually says, about the rhetorical quality of one speech, without the lying DiLorenzo spin:
Although the speech contains some of the most memorable passages in his writings, it lacks the unity of effect which marks his best. The truth is that Lincoln had no solution to the problem of slavery except the colonization idea which he had inherited from Henry Clay, and when he spoke beyond his points of limiting the extension of slavery, of preserving the essential central idea of human equality, and of respecting the Negro as a human being, his words lacked effectiveness.
A competent or honest reader of that passage would conclude that Basler finds Lincoln's words on slavery, in this speech, to be effective on his points of limiting the extension of slavery, of preserving the essential central idea of human equality, and of respecting the Negro as a human being. But DiLorenzo LIES about this passage, claiming that it contains Basler's judgment that Lincoln's words on slaveryin the post 1854 period in general are both insincere and ineffective.
This thread is about "Fighting Facts With Slander." It seems to me that the author of "The Real Lincoln" is a champ at it.
Last point. In the SAME PARAGRAPH of Basler, Basler mentions the DISCUSSION OF JACKSON'S VETO OF THE BANK DECISION by Lincoln IN THE DRED SCOTT SPEECH. Remember that one? That's the place where, according to DiLorenzo, Lincoln "bitterly denounced" Jackson's veto of the Bank. DiLorenzo here as well proceeds as a dishonest hack, because he was so busy misrepresenting Basler's remark in the last half of the paragraph that he omitted to notice that Basler mentions the same passage, about the bank, and correctly notes that Lincoln was ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE BANK DECISION AS PRECEDENT FOR RESISTING THE DRED SCOTT DECISION:
He cited the action of Andrew Jackson in ignoring a court decision - and incidentally Douglas's approval of Jackson-as precedent for Republican endeavor to have the decision reversed. (Basler, p. 23).
DiLorenzo is so fundamentally dishonest as a scholar that it is hard to believe, even when looking directly at these texts, that he isn't just incompetent. Either way, it is remarkable that anyone takes him seriously enough to cite as an authority on the "real" anything.
No, they do not as per the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White. Sorry, but your saying so doesn't make your statement true. Their saying so makes your statement false. But where's the surprise in that?
Edd
You've got it backwards Qauck.
Earlier on this thread you tried to portray Lincoln has uninterested in economics. Total falsehood.
Henry Clay, the Kentucky politician whom Lincoln called his "beau ideal of a statesman," died on June 29, 1852. The same day, Lincoln appointed a committee in Springfield, Illinois, to arrange a public tribute. On July 6, while stores were closed and business was suspended, the Rev. Charles Dresser read the service for the dead at the Episcopal church. The procession continued to the statehouse, where Lincoln delivered this eulogy in the Hall of Representatives.
Clay spent his entire career trying to centralize power in DC and was only stopped by southern senators and represenatives. That was the Whig ideology. Lincoln was a Whig. And once elected President, Lincoln passed much of the whig platform. Which in effect nationalized much of the economy which in turn destroyed the delicate balance between the states and Washington DC. Modern liberals who adore Lincoln, James McPherson, Garry Wills, David Quackenbush and George Fletcher, for example credit him with achieving a revolution in securing federal supremacy over the states. This amounts to an admission that it was Jefferson Davis, not Lincoln, who was fighting to preserve the Constitution.
Oh come on, when it comes to government interference in the private sector Lincoln couldn't hold a candle to Jefferson Davis. Davis was the one who forced through legislation appropriating a percentage of the annual output from each farm for the war effort, paying a price far lower than what the farmer could get in the private sector. The confederate government forced each blockade runner to reserve a percentage of their cargo space for government cargo, at a price far below what they could get in the private sector. Finally, the government could conscript slave labor for the war effort at will, with or without pay. Sounds like under Davis, the state had little respect for private property or free enterprise.
Well then, I guess you'll let Lincoln off the hook too, seeing as how he nver got a chance to govern during peacetime either.
And how about addressing the issues raised in post 341, instead of just trying to change the subject.
Huge difference Non. Stephens was a southern whig. It's kinda like trying to compare Olympia Snow and Phil Gramm.
I'll repeat, because your complete ignoring of evidence seems to make it necessary. Lincoln spoke for hours on the day your quotation refers to. He spoke about Clay. He said why he admired Clay. He didn't talk about economics.
If you think his participation in the memorialization of Clay is significant, perhaps you can explain why the lengthy speech Lincoln gave on that occasion, about Clay, expressing his reasons for venerating Clay, DOESN'T count as evidence. I'm guessing it's because you haven't read it. Did you read the evidence I posted that DiLorenzo lies? It's all right there.
Same with Lincoln.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.