Examining 'evidence' of Lincoln's tyranny

World Net daily ^ | April 23, 2002 | David Quackenbush

[WhiskeyPapa]

It is easy to refute the lies about Lincoln. DiLorenzo is more devious than most.

[rdf]

Ping!

[GOPcapitalist]

First, it's World Net Daily. Second, your link doesn't go to anything remotely resemblant of the above article. Third, in light of your historically flexible exploits on FR, Walt, you have very little room from which to accuse others of academic fraud.

[WhiskeyPapa]

First, it's World Net Daily. Second, your link doesn't go to anything remotely resemblant of the above article. Third, in light of your historically flexible exploits on FR, Walt, you have very little room from which to accuse others of academic fraud.

Thanks for the correction on the "World Net Daily". I don't go there much.

As to the links, some of them work, some don't. All I did was "view source" and then pasted it all in.

If you can show any academic fraud by me, you need to do it, and not talk about it.

La-de-dah.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Oh, thanks for bumping the thread.

Walt

[Libertarianize the GOP]

fyi

[Ditto]

How, might we be permitted to ask, was it possible for a scholar of good will and serious attention to have misread this text so completely?

It is not possible for a scholar of good will and serious attemtion to do so. It is possible for a hustler who's looking to rip off the neo-Confederate true believers.

[stainlessbanner]

Thanks for the correction on the "World Net Daily". I don't go there much.

You are to busy probably worshipping your Lincoln shrine.

[Illbay]

"Tariffs, banks, internal improvements, corruption, and other staples of American politics received not a word in these debates – the sole topic was slavery."

I am rereading Battle Cry of Freedom currently as it happens, and I read this sentence just last week, thinking how interesting--and important--a point it was.

For those of you who haven't read it, McPherson's work is wonderful as a totally unbiased, well-documented and very readable work in one volume. He presents the triumphs and the ignominy of the leaders in both the North and the South of the nation at this time very well.

[stainlessbanner]

Post 8 is for Wlat, not Libertarianize the GOP.

[Keyes For President]

Btt

[Lurking Libertarian]

Good article. Thanks for posting it.

[Illbay]

Oh, there's yet another scintillating argument by the neo-Confederate fantasyland dwellers.

I notice that in the face of facts, you people would rather sling silly rhetoric.

Why is that, I wonder?

[rdf]

If you are having trouble finding the piece, try this:

Quackenbush on Four of Dilorezo's errors

It's a careful and perfectly researched piece, and really quite devastating.

Regards,

Richard F.

[stainlessbanner]

The article is a cut and paste hack job.

[Charles Martel]

You know, this rancorous topic would come up here a lot less often if you'd just leave it alone. Take up a hobby or something, Walt... your obsession with this subject is approaching epic proportions. Your white whale will still be here later, so take a break, Ahab.

[4CJ]

It is easy to refute the lies about Lincoln.

I agree. That's why we're here.

[rdf]

It is not possible for a scholar of good will and serious attention to do so.

That is, to misread a quotation of a VA clergyman in Lincoln's Eulogy of Clay as though the words and sentiments were Lincoln's is not a possible mistake for a scholar of serious attention and good will.

And how!

It is a child's mistake; it would merit a "F" in a High School Term Paper.

When I first read it, I almost fell down laughing.

The editors at Random House who approved the manuscript must be updating their resumes and looking for new jobs.

Maybe the Southern League will employ them!

[humbletheFiend]

The First Duke of Bakersfield is very persuasive. His words are obviously sincere and do not lack effectiveness.

I just wish that someone would sometime explain to me what really underlies the view held by some that the presidency of Lincoln has in some manner adversely affected our current institutions and political environment.

[rdf]

The article is a cut and paste hack job.

Of course I disagree, but to make things more amiable here, take this part, and either agree with it, or show it's wrong. It's not difficult ... the 1852 Eulogy of Clay is easily downloaded, or you may find it in Basler or numerous other sources.

Quackenbush writes:

"Lincoln quotes with withering disapproval the words of a Virginia clergyman who repudiates and mocks the Declaration doctrine of human equality. Dr. DiLorenzo presents snippets of the clergyman's words as Lincoln's own – a gross falsehood – in order to "prove" that Lincoln's love of the Declaration was insincere."

Now, is this true or not?

Regards,

Richard F.