GOPCapitalist quotes:
"I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views." - A. Lincoln, October 11, 1859
but, like Dr. Dimento, leaves out the rest of the quote in which Lincoln says that Whigenomics (my coinage - I'm in a hurry here) is NO LONGER his (to use GOPCapitalist's word) "agenda".
"Agenda" means, more or less, "things to be done". But Lincoln clearly says that the issues of slavery is, at the time of his writing, so much more important than anything else that he is pretty much willing to let Whigenomics slide -- that is, to remove it from his list of things to be done.
I don't think this is a nuance. It is a subtlety, but that's not a bad thing. Details of this kind do matter, and we make this kind of distinction in our own lives all the time, as "I still have a strong desire for a Ferrari, but the necessity of keeping a roof over my head is now so important that, while my desire for a Ferrari has never abated, I will not be acting on it any time soon."
Were I to say such a thing and were someone to characterize getting a Ferrari as my "agenda", I would just laugh, since, like LIncoln in the passage referred to above I had just pretty much renounced it as an agenda item, while admitting it was still an desire.
This is not to say that many aspects of Lincoln's economic thinking are not troubling. They are. They're also irrelevant. So, the sub-theme of this entire thread (and of many others), that Dr. Dimento is pretty much entirely unreliable as an assembler and interpreter of the data of historical material, stands, bloody but unbowed.
Selective quoting is just one of his tools (and, unfortunately, one of those of some of his defenders). We also are obliged to enjoy the outright fabrications (Lincoln to the legislature in 1857 - 1857??), the passing of blame to unverifed secondary sources (some identified and some not, see Dimento's apology/blowoff of the remarkable Siamese Twin bobble), and the gnostic insistence that his thesis stands whether or not the facts he uses to support it are really facts. I would have thought that far, far better arguments could be made for the anti-Lincoln POV. As far as I'm concerned the most troubling argument AGAINST the neo-reb position is that the facts they advance to support their stand are so unreliable.
And the second most troubling argument is that when the facts are shown not to be facts, they, or many of them, simply don't care. Their flag, they say, still flies, though the flag pole is "brast to bits". It is suspended in their minds not by the truth but by their strong desire.
De Dawg bark, de ruffi'ns run away!
Check out this link, BTW
Cheers,
Richard F.
Really? Why then did you not bother to put in the rest of the quote I supposedly "left out" of the picture?
In fact, if you wanted to discuss it, all you had to do was ask as I am happy to provide the entire letter.
In fact, looking at the letter's in its entirity, Lincoln does NOT, as you suggest, assert that this position is, as you put it in a fabrication of your own that seems to come out of nowhere, "no longer" Lincoln's agenda. To the contrary, he goes on to advocate a tariff and expresses his desire that the issue and implementation of a tariff will occur in the near future.
For the record, here is the part of the letter I quoted:
"I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views."
Immediately following that last period, Lincoln continues with the following, which in no reasonable way resembles what you asserted it to be in your earlier fraudulent accusation of faulty truncation.
"I believe yet, if we could have a moderate, carefully adjusted, protective tariff, so far acquiesed in, as to not be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles, charges, and uncertainties, it would be better for us."
In other words, Lincoln first says he's an old tariff Whig whose views have not changed. Next he advocates implementing a tariff, yet not a word about it no longer being his agenda or anything of the sort. The letter continues, again immediately from where the previous quote left off, with a comment on the political viability of the issue.
"Still, it is my opinion that, just now, the revival of that question, will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it."
In short, pushing the issue as part of his campaign would be too divisive and cost him votes. But Lincoln does not stop there. Quite to the contrary, he continues in anticipation of the tariff becoming reality. Immediately from where the last quotation left off, which might I add again had nothing even remotely suggesting the tariff was no longer his issue as you fraudulently asserted, Lincoln continues:
"I have not thought much upon the subject recently; but my general impression is, that the necessity for a protective tariff will, ere long, force it's old opponents to take it up;"
Lincoln expresses hope of the protective tariff becoming a politically viable necessity in the near future. Continuing from the semi-colon where we left off, Lincoln writes:
"and then it's old friends can join in, and establish it on a more firm and durable basis. We, the old whigs, have been entirely beaten out on the tariff question; and we shall not be able to re-establish the policy, until the absence of it, shall have demonstrated the necessity for it, in the minds of men heretofore opposed to it." ...a reiteration of the previous lines. Lincoln advocates the tariff's "old friends," himself included, being able to take it up in the near future when it is politically viable. He then concedes again that it is not politically viable as a campaign issue (this particular letter of his was in response to a request that he campaign on the issue) at the time and that if he were to make it so, it would hurt him as his position, the Whig position, was in the minority at the time. Then he expresses hope again that necessity would require its reestablishment in the future. I think it is safe to add that at this future point, Lincoln would not have hesitated to take up the tariff issue, as happened a year later after the Morrill bill passed.
"Agenda" means, more or less, "things to be done". But Lincoln clearly says that the issues of slavery is, at the time of his writing, so much more important than anything else that he is pretty much willing to let Whigenomics slide -- that is, to remove it from his list of things to be done.
Really? Cause the issue of slavery does not appear anywhere at all in the entirity of the letter from which my original quote was taken. Nor does he give any indication that he is willing to drop the tariff issue. To the contrary, he expresses hope of instituting it in the near future. In light of these facts, and the rest of the quote (the substance of which I have posted for your review above) it is clear that you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. I may safely say that you are making things up. Some would say that you are lying.
I don't think this is a nuance. It is a subtlety, but that's not a bad thing. Details of this kind do matter,
Sure they do, as does getting the details right. You got them wrong and in fact appear to have simply MADE THEM UP instead of seeking them out.
Were I to say such a thing and were someone to characterize getting a Ferrari as my "agenda", I would just laugh, since, like LIncoln in the passage referred to above I had just pretty much renounced it as an agenda item, while admitting it was still an desire.
You may have renounced your agenda, but Lincoln did not. You made up the claim that he did and asserted it to have followed that quote, even though it did not.
In fact, Lincoln's career after the 1859 letter I quoted indicates continued support for the tariff.
In more than one case after that letter, Lincoln pledged his support of the pro-tariff plank of the 1860 Republican platform. He continued to do so after the election.
In a February 15, 1861 speech devoted almost entirely to advocating the tariff, Lincoln stated:
"In the Chicago Platform there is a plank upon this subject, which should be a general law, to the incoming administration. We should do neither more nor less than we gave the people reason to believe we would, when they gave us their votes. That plank is as I now read: 'That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imposts, sound policy requires such an adjustment of the imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.'"
That was just weeks before his inauguration at a time when the Morrill bill was a big issue.
In that same speech, Lincoln even proclaimed the tariff issue a top issue priority, stating "if the consideration of the Tariff bill should be postponed until the next session of the National Legislature, no subject should engage your representatives more closely than that of a tariff."
This is not to say that many aspects of Lincoln's economic thinking are not troubling. They are.
I'll agree. Perhaps most troubling is his rudimentary version of the labor theory of value, which appeared all over his political career. The first recorded indications of it came around 1847 on some of his speech notes that have survived. He mentioned it again in the 1861 speech I just quoted to you, and at another date during one of his state of the union addresses.
They're also irrelevant.
Now that's pretty convenient of you, don't you think? I believe Lincoln's advocacy of tariffs during his later career as well as it being the dominant issue of his early career makes it relevant in the very least.
Selective quoting is just one of his tools (and, unfortunately, one of those of some of his defenders).
Really? Because selective Lincoln quoting seems to be one of the, if not the, favorite tool of Lincoln defenders on this forum. A close second favorite of theirs is McPherson quoting.
When the whole record is displayed, a much more complex picture of Lincoln is painted, and in the very least it is not near as pretty.
We also are obliged to enjoy the outright fabrications (Lincoln to the legislature in 1857 - 1857??), the passing of blame to unverifed secondary sources
Actually, Ferrier's own source conceded that the 1857 thing was an error originally made by a secondary source that DiLorenzo cited.
and the gnostic insistence that his thesis stands whether or not the facts he uses to support it are really facts.
I know of no such silly insistence, though I do readily admit to expressing the valid concern that his 300 page work cannot simply be blown off upon 4-5 oft repeated exercises in downright obsessive pettyness. Several DiLorenzo critics have asserted there to be "dozens" of errors, but they always repeat the same 4-5 complaints, some of which are blurred and interpretive at best. Why is that and where are these supposed "dozens" of others?
I would have thought that far, far better arguments could be made for the anti-Lincoln POV. As far as I'm concerned the most troubling argument AGAINST the neo-reb position is that the facts they advance to support their stand are so unreliable.
With all due respect, I do not think you have much room to talk considering the embarrassing exercise you employed to start off this very post to which I am responding. Just thought I'd pass that along.
This is the second letter, which Lincoln says expresses the same thoughts as the first.
*******
Dr. Edward Wallace:
Springfield, Ills. May 12. 1860
My dear Sir
Your brother, Dr. W. S. Wallace, shows me a letter of yours, in which you in which you request him to inquire if you may use a letter of mine to you, in which something is said upon the Tariff question. I do not precisely remember what I did say in that letter; but I presume I said nothing substantially different from what I shall say now.
In the days of Henry Clay I was a Henry Clay-tariff-man; and my views have undergone no material change upon that subject. I now think the Tariff question ought not to be agitated in the Chicago convention; but that all should be satisfied on that point, with a presidential candidate, whose antecedents give assurance that he would neither seek to force a tariff-law by Executive influence; nor yet to arrest a reasonable one, by a veto, or otherwise. Just such a candidate I desire shall be put in nomination. I really have no objection to these views being publicly known; but I do wish to thrust no letter before the public now, upon any subject. Save me from the appearance of obtrusion; and I do not care who sees this, or my former letter.
Yours very truly
A. LINCOLN
*****
I'll follow with the first in a moment.
There is nothing at all surprising in any American Statesman of the first 100 years of the Republic thinking, with Locke and Smith, that labor lies at the basis of rights in property and human economic activity, and that it gives things their real value.
Cheers,
Richard F.