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

Skip to comments.

Fighting Facts With Slander
LR ^ | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Posted on 04/02/2002 9:45:23 PM PST by VinnyTex

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 541-548 next last
To: VinnyTex
After the war the congress again passed huge tariffs which only raped the souths economy. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out.

Vinnie, can you tell me how a tariff 'rapes' the South but leaves the North virgin? Was there anything in the tariff that kept the south from building its own factories?

61 posted on 04/03/2002 2:11:12 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator

To: Aurelius
Precisely.....thank you....amazingly convenient, doncha think?
63 posted on 04/03/2002 2:12:07 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
You ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to economics.

Look at a map of the United States. Now, what region has the most coastline and warm weather ports.

64 posted on 04/03/2002 2:14:21 PM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water
Bump!
65 posted on 04/03/2002 2:20:35 PM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: one2many
I'll be glad to go on through your list, if you first agree to these two things.

1] Roberts compared Lincoln to Pol Pot ... said, in fact, that he was worse!

That is a calumny.

2] According to Roberts, "Lincoln urged his generals ...to use rape as a weapon of war..."

That is a calumny.

I ask you to do this because DiLorenzo is writing specifically about Dr. Keyes' column and my Foundation, and is defending the Roberts column in which these two calumnies occur. The points you mention are partially in the Roberts pice and partially not.

Old business first, if you would be so kind.

Cheers,

Richard F.

66 posted on 04/03/2002 2:56:01 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Again? We agreed not to address responses to each other. Once again you violated that agreement. It's obvious what your word is worth.
67 posted on 04/03/2002 2:58:37 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
Well, it really wasn't that long and it didn't use any big words but if you insist I will fill you in. The long and the short of it is that none of the actions were illegal. West Virginia entered the Union in accordance with the Constitution.
68 posted on 04/03/2002 3:00:48 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
That's simply not true.

If that is not true then show me where it is not true. Evidence would be nice.

69 posted on 04/03/2002 3:02:02 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
In other words, some guys got together and said "Let's make our own state, and while we're at it, we'll make ourselves the legislature." The Union Congress was happy to go along with that.

Those 'guys' were the duly elected members of the state legislature from the western counties who refused to go along with treason. The people who elected them fully suported the restored legislature. They didn't want to be associated with the mad men in Richmond defending a handful of corrupt millionaire plantation owners.

70 posted on 04/03/2002 3:05:47 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
Regardless, the fact still remains that Kansas was admitted to the Union in January 1861. Lincoln was inagurated in March 1861. DiLorenzo's statement was the latest in a seemingly neverending litany of falsehoods.
71 posted on 04/03/2002 3:06:04 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
There was nothing stopping the other members of the Virginia legislature from joining in, except that they were off revoltin' and all.
72 posted on 04/03/2002 3:08:53 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: humbletheFiend
This may not persuade you to join the discussion, but since DF is attacked by name in DiLorenzo's screed, i think it worth posting anyway.

*******

Why we care about Lies told against Lincoln

Feb. 23rd, 2002

Your President and Academic Fellow, David Quackenbush, have been on the internet and at this site as a kind of truth squad this week. Lies, and malicious half-truths, told by a certain Professor DiLorenzo, of Loyola College in MD have aroused our concern ... not to say our ire ... and you all deserve a straightforward reason why we feel and act as we do.

It's very simple.

Lincoln, more than any other American statesman, understood himself to be acting from Declaration Principles.

This Foundation is about acting from Declaration Principles.

Your Chairman, Ambassador Alan Keyes, and your President are on record numerous times as holding that Lincoln did exemplify those principles. It becomes our duty, then to correct falsehoods and sneers against the chief exemplar of our mission. Uncorrected, those lies will be retold and believed, by some, to the detriment of this Foundation and the Republic it seeks to serve.

There is an even more fundamental reason we are speaking out.

The American Republic is, as Federalist I put it, a test of whether men could be governed by "reflection and choice." That means by reason. The medium of reason is speech. Lies undermine the power and credibility of speech. Lies about the great and lies about justice undermine political piety and the labors of those who love justice.

These lies cannot, then, be tolerated. And yet, the power of law may not, and should not, be used against them. What is to be done? Good men must expose, refute, and denounce such falsehood and its purveyors.

This we have done, and this we will continue to do.

Liberty and Union, Now and Forever!

Dr. Richard Ferrier
President, Declaration Roundation

Cheers,

Richard F.

73 posted on 04/03/2002 3:11:47 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: rdf
Dang!

Declaration Foundation!

No humility without humiliation, I guess!

Cheers,

Richard F.

74 posted on 04/03/2002 3:13:31 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
Look at a map of the United States. Now, what region has the most coastline and warm weather ports.

LOL. Vinnie. Even in 1860, the port of New York alone received more imports than every port in the south combined. Still does. The majority of tariffs were paid in the North. The tonnage through southern ports was mostly exports --- cotton, rice and sugar. The government collected no taxes on exports.

But that still does not answer my question. If we assume that all Americans have an equal need for goods produced overseas, how does an import tariff 'rape' the South and not harm the North? Did the south need more French lace or Dutch diamonds or Czech crystal than the North?

75 posted on 04/03/2002 3:17:45 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Sort of like #60 describes, eh.....as I said....having it both ways....

They were not honorable men.

76 posted on 04/03/2002 3:30:32 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Your justification rings just as hollow as those here at FR who would tell you that PResident Bush doesn't have to obey the Constitution or even worry about it because bad laws go to the Supreme Court....
77 posted on 04/03/2002 3:32:37 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Matter of fact, The Perverted President and his minions could have uttered that excuse.....and all conservatives would have been condemning them to hell and beyond!
78 posted on 04/03/2002 3:33:59 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
It's not usual for you and me to disagree, but here goes.

I assume secession illegal, and in fact, I take it to be rebellion.

The bulk of the duly elected legislators were in rebellion, but the remainder not. Acting on behalf of the whole, the loyal legislators petitioned for what they had wanted for over 80 years, a legitimate partition of the state. Just as in Washington DC, the rebel legislators had voluntarily given up their votes by walking out. Just as in DC, in VA the remainder acted, legally, for the whole.

The request was contitutional and was duly accepted by Congress. It was actually mild in some ways ... consider what they could have done ... say, abolished slavery in the whole state, and otherwise acted on its behalf, with a view to supporting the Union. They did no such thing, of course, but merely set themselves apart from the whole, which they had long wished to do.

Somehow, I'm not shocked.

Cheers,

Richard F.

79 posted on 04/03/2002 3:39:56 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
Save me the trouble of reading and just tell me....it was the newly formed legislature that voted, right? :)

I could be wrong, but I think your answer is "No"

Where do you think the argument stands now?

Cheers,

Richard F.

80 posted on 04/03/2002 3:54:24 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 541-548 next last

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.

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