Check the speeches. The Clay eulogy is garbled to produce a gross misrepresentation, [Basler, pg. 274] and the Cooper Institute speech actually has Lincoln quoting Jefferson, and not saying a thing there about "deporting." [Basler, pg.531]
DiLorenzo has a habit, nay, a vice, of abuse of language.
It's very helpful for him to continue responding; he destroys his credibility and damages his cause every time he opens his mouth.
Cheers,
Richard F.
The bottom line is that Lincoln was instrumental in the eradication of a horrible and evil institution - slavery. The author can argue all he wants about Lincoln's motives but can never prove his theories. The evidence suggests that Lincoln converted into a true Christian believer in the latter days of his presidency as evidenced by his Thanksgiving proclamation (among other speeches and writings). Lincoln's leadership and character improved over the course of his presidency. Can anyone find fault with the crux of his 2nd inaugural address in which Lincoln wanted to "forgive" the rebellious states ("charity towards all")? It was the radical Republicans that picked up the ball after his assassination (e.g. Stevens, etc.) that made Reconstruction the utter failure that it was. The radicals were among the most unforgiving people ever to sit in our Congress. Let's write a book about them! This sort of book us just the kind of material that the anti-American propagandists will use and distort and develop in order to further their treasonous amoral ungodly agendas. This book belongs on the trash heap - A GOOD DOOR STOP.
Henry Clay was indeed an important figure behind the American Colonization Society. But Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, James Monroe, Francis Scott Key, William Crawford, Richard Bland Lee and Justice Bushrod Washington were also involved in its founding. Jefferson, Madison and Marshall were also supporters. Clay suceeded Madison as President of the Society. Slaveowners and present-day paleo-libertarian and paleo-conservative icons John Randolph of Roanoake and John Taylor of Caroline were also founders.
In other words, the ACS was as much a product of those Jeffersonian Virginians that Southern nationalists tell us to admire, as it was of Clay and his ideology. Indeed, it was much more a product of Tidewater Jeffersonians than of Yankees or Whigs. The founders were those slave owners who we are told were always on the verge of abolishing slavery -- and those who simply wanted to get rid of free blacks to ensure the survival of the institution. You can't excuse Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Taylor or Randolph and attack Clay and Lincoln for not coming up to 21st century standards.
If Lincoln was a "racist" or "apartheidist" early in his career, so was virtually the entire political elite and the entire country. Lincoln gradually extricated himself from much of the racial attitudes of his time. Whether or not one wants to praise or reward him for that, one should at least do justice to his transformation.
I don't think Lincoln was a tyrant. He was simply trying to preserve the union, nation and Constitution against those who wanted to destroy it. His methods were a reflection of theirs and vice versa. That is what happens during wars, particularly civil wars.
It also should be noted that some of those who called Lincoln or Davis "tyrants" may not necessarily have been disapproving. Ancient Greece saw temporary rulers called tyrants take over in times of severe crisis, and handed power back to legitimate authorities once the crisis had passed. At first there was some approval of these emergency rulers but in time they outstayed their welcome and brought the word into disrepute. I don't argue that Lincoln was a tyrant, but some of those who label Lincoln or Davis "tyrants" might have been using the word in its earliest sense and without the negative connotation.
Where Di Lorenzo and his followers go wrong is in projecting back all present-day conflicts and mentalities back on the past. He does this selectively in order to condemn Lincoln and only Lincoln and his supporters of racism, and excuse secessionists of this fault. Also, if the present age is marked by a conflict between socialism and freedom, then Lincoln must represent socialism and the Confederates freedom.
But in fact, the conflicts were different then. What di Lorenzo misses is the background of assumptions about race or economics or federalism that was not in question at the time, but that has since been lost. He substitutes the 21st century background for this, and selectively attacks those he wants to attack for not measuring up to 21st century standards.
Ages have family quarrels, like that between the Jacksonians and the Whigs. Such quarrels can be quite bitter, but still remain family quarrels, because of the common assumptions in the background. The outsider, cherry picking facts to support his own thesis misses these assumptions.
p.s. I'm willing to wager that the moderator who deleted nearly half the posts here lives in one of the states that voted for lincoln in 1860 & gore in 2000. If not for the proud Southern conservatives who stand up for the truth & continue to post here in spite of the censorship, the whole country would desend into the miserable lincoln/gore cesspool. God Bless Dixie!
This is one of the few points on which I agree with DiLorenzo. Based on my quick word search of the debates, it appears that Lincoln did very briefly mention his belief that a national bank was Constitutional on several occasions, so McPherson overstated the single-issue nature of the debates somewhat. Of course, Lincoln's comments about the Constitutionality of a national bank severely undercuts DiLorenzo's attempt to paint Lincoln as anti-Constitutional.
Also, let us not forget that slavery was certainly an economic as well as a moral issue, what with the Confederates putting a value on their cherished institution of at least $3 billion at a time when the annual federal budget was only $63 million.
Thanks for all your efforts in pointing out DiLorenzo's atrocious scholarly deficiencies.
Now, this is another lie. In fact, it is two. Lincoln nowhere in the Cooper Institute Speech said a word about Colonization. And the words about "free white laborers" are from Jefferson. Quoted by Lincoln, to be sure. But from Jefferson.
How long will anyone take this fraud, DiLorenzo, seriously?
His work suggests that we poor mortals are, indeed, under the sway of lies, and "the father of lies."
For Truth,
Richard F.
Richard F.
Cheers,
Richard F.
And his initials are not L i n c o l n but instead
D i L o r e n z o.
But nevermind, the delusional tend to be only concerned with facts which support their delusions. . . their lives evidently lacking other, more constructive enterprises to focus on.