Replies

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.

Always eager to be proven wrong, I would love to see the text you have in mind.

You mention the fact that a search shows the topic arising in several of the debates. I think I know why. Another equally spurious pattern of DiLorenzo is to misunderstand Lincoln's invocation of the Jackson Bank Charter veto as an economic point. I have not yet seen a single instance where Lincoln expresses his opinion that the bank was Constitutional in the Lincoln Douglas Debates -- in fact, at any time in the late '50's. Each time I have seen the matter referred to by Lincoln, it is scrupulously restricted to his point that Douglas and the Democrats have spent 30 years rejecting the Supreme Court decision on the Bank, and now want to demand that the Republicans accept Dred Scott simply because the Supreme Court issued it.

In fact, if you (can bear to) read DiLorenzo closely in the past months, you will see that he has seized on my expression that there is not a "word" on economic doctrine in the debates. Your word search shows, what I never intended to deny, that economic words occur. The point is that they do not occur as expressions of economic doctrine, but of discussions regarding the authority of the Supreme Court wholly contained to the context of the question of what authority the Dred Scott decision must be granted. This is a subtle enough point (having about a teaspoon of subtlety) that DiLorenzo has seized on it as an occasion to avoid admitting that McPherson is right, and the exclusive topic of the debates was slavery.

The point, again, is just whether there is any text in which Lincoln explicitly or even by clear implication goes beyond noting that the Democrats have opposed a Supreme Court decision, and goes on to make the separate point that he, Lincoln, AGREES with that Supreme Court decision.

Thanks for your help in settling this matter one way or another.

Always keeping in mind, of course, that this all started because DiLorenzo said that Lincoln "championed" the "corrupt Whig economic agenda" in "virtually every one of the Lincoln Douglas debates." This, I think we all agree is an entirely different and totally unsupported claim.

I'll look forward to seeing what texts you find. I may have missed something.