Lincoln: Tyrant or champion or both?

WorldNetDaily ^ | May 6, 2002 | Geoff Metcalf

[Korth]

I have now interviewed both Dr. Tom DiLorenzo and Dr. Richard Ferrier regarding our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln. I entered the controversy intrigued, but really without a dog in the fight. As I have too often said, "It is not a question of who is right or wrong but what is right or wrong that counts."

I am not a Lincoln hater and I don't idolize the man. Like most of you, I am an interested student.

As usual, both sides have merits and shortfalls. However, in the wake of the two interviews, myriad e-mails and having read, "The Real Lincoln" and the Lincoln-Douglas debates, I have reached personal conclusions.

But, frankly, my conclusions are tainted. I have a few pet peeves. Honesty, to me, is important both in content and in character. I consider "Duty, Honor, Country" as more than a cute phrase, but a credo. Oaths are important, significant, and not to be entered into or broken cavalierly.

When any person swears a sacred oath to "preserve and protect the Constitution," they have made a lifelong commitment. I am routinely annoyed and offended by people who take the oath and subsequently (by thought, deed and action) undermine, abrogate or attempt to alter the very document that they have sworn to "preserve and protect."

I consider those who violate that oath as being guilty of fraud, perjury and treason.

When I interviewed DiLorenzo I told him he had provided me with an epiphany. I have frequently noted that when the framers were forming the republic, Jefferson and Hamilton had a long series of debates. Jefferson was arguing for states' rights, and Hamilton wanted a big federal bureaucracy – like we have now. Historically, Jefferson won the debate.

I have been trying to figure out at what point in our history Jefferson lost. I used to think it was inertia building until 1913, and then FDR. But actually, Lincoln should get the credit for defeating Jefferson for Hamilton.

DiLorenzo said, "One of the main themes of my book is that Abraham Lincoln was the political son of Alexander Hamilton … Lincoln took up the Hamiltonian mantle of big, centralized government, centralized planning, autocratic leadership. The great debates between the Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians were ended at gunpoint under the directorship of Abraham Lincoln, in my view. And I think that debate was ended by 1865."

I am more convinced than ever that DiLorenzo is right about that.

Ferrier told me his complaints with DiLorenzo were "falsehood in details, sloppiness of scholarship and a fundamentally wrong-headed view of the role of Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence, and American history and our political philosophy."

I'll get to the "falsehood" charge, but "a fundamentally wrong-headed view of the role of Lincoln" is really a kinda high-handed and pretentious way of saying, "I'm right and he's wrong." Although DiLorenzo didn't say so, I suspect he probably feels the same way about Ferrier and his other critics. By extension and association, Ferrier also must feel Professor Walter Williams has a "fundamentally wrong-headed view of the role of Lincoln."

Ferrier made some good points. However, in my view, in one defense, he further diminishes his idol as disingenuous, calculating and adroit at parsing "weasel words."

In discussing slavery, he confirmed Lincoln said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between white and black races, and I have never said anything to the contrary." He corrected the DiLorenzo citation, but said, "Lincoln, who was a lawyer and was careful with his words, did not say 'I do not believe in that equality. I do not think it is a good thing.' He said, 'I have no purpose to introduce it.' Those are the words of a careful lawyerly politician …"

In other words Lincoln was using Clintonian verbiage carefully qualifying the definition of what "is" is. So, when Lincoln said, "I have no purpose," Ferrier says he meant, "I don't at the moment intend to bring about such equality." And if he had said anything else in Illinois in the 1850s, he couldn't have been elected to dogcatcher. So Lincoln (according to Dr. Ferrier) was being duplicitous – in other words, dishonest.

Both these professors score points in the debate. DiLorenzo apparently misstates citations and uses quotes to support his position and ignores quotes that undercut it. By the way, Ferrier likewise seems comfortable ignoring facts that contradict his preconceived opinion.

DiLorenzo and Ferrier are academics and scholars. I am not. However, a lot of the things Lincoln did were specifically designed to abrogate, eviscerate and destroy the very document to which he swore an oath. For Ferrier and company to say, "Well, gosh, the other guys were doing it too," is not an adequate defense.

Karen DeCoster has been accused of excess in her criticism of Lincoln. However, in my view, she is right when she says he was, "A conniving and manipulative man … he was nowhere near what old guard historians would have us believe."

[4CJ]

Just out of curiousity, if the duties paid by southerners was so low, why would Lincoln insist on collecting the revenues? He was more than willing to allow the south to slide, and not attempt to force them back, he only wanted the revenues.

[Aurelius]

-1861-

U.S. Civil War begins, U.S.Public debt is $64.8 millions (1860)
$50,000,000 U. S. Notes authorized to help finance Civil War.

-1862-

$10,000,000 additional U. S. Notes authorized.
$150,000,000 additional U. S. Notes authorized.

-1865

U.S.Civil War ends, Public debt is $2.68 billions.

SOURCE Scroll down to 1861.

[Aurelius]

"Which economy had a sound currency throughout the war,...?"

Not the union, that's for sure. Between their issuance in 1862 and 1864, the value of greenbacks decreased to 35% of their initial value.

[Non-Sequitur]

And how much did the value of the confederate dollar decrease in the same period?

[Non-Sequitur]

Just out of curiosity if the duties paid by southerners were so high then why would Alexander Stephens have said the following?

The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself. And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that...they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at."

[Aurelius]

"And how much did the value of the confederate dollar decrease in the same period?"

Same damned tired tactic. For the remainder of my short stay at this forum I will ignore your "but what about the other side?" responses, so don't waste your time.

[weikel]

The word keyster in this context was not a reference to keyes it referred to a certain part of human anatomy.

[Non-Sequitur]

If you refer to the original post I was comparing the Union economy with the confederate one. By comparison with the worthless confederate currency, the Union currency was stable and sound throughout the war. Shall we discuss the other comparisons I made?

[Aurelius]

You seem to be implying that the union [lower case on purpose] "had a sound currency throughout the war". Well, it didn't. That of the Confederacy may have been worse but that has no relevance to the truth or falsehood of the implied assertion in question. What part of "irrelevant" don't you understand.

[Non-Sequitur]

The U.S. dollar lost about 35% of its purchase price during the Carter years. Would you say that it ceased to be a sound and stable currency? Losing 35% of it's value works out to about an inflation rate between 8% and 9%. Not bad for a country fighting to put down a rebellion. There were times when the confederate dollar lost 35% of its value in the course of a month.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Type "Sand Creek Massacre" in any searchin thingymajiggy and then set down for a spell.. cause it's gone take you a night to read through all them "sources".

So you are offering an Indian massacre as an offset to CSA atrocities against Union forces? That doesn't seem very honest to me.

The record shows that atrocities by the CSA dwarfed similar actions by federal forces.

Walt

[Aurelius]

"By comparison with the worthless confederate currency, the Union currency was stable ...

If that is what you meant, you should have inserted the word "relatively".

In any case, the state of the Confederate economy compared to that of the North was one to be expected from a number of circumstances and does not reflect particularly to the credit of the North nor to the discredit of the South - although it may appear in your view of the world.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Just out of curiosity if the duties paid by southerners were so high then why would Alexander Stephens have said the following?

Now, now.

You know it's not fair to quote the historical record.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

Of course not. It's all the Yankees fault. We know that.

[Aurelius]

"The U.S. dollar lost about 35% of its purchase price during the Carter years."

But we are not talking about the Carter years or a dollar that lost 35% of its value in 4 years. We are talking about a greenback that fell from its face value to 35% of its face value in 17 months, or 1.42 years. That corresponds to an annual inflation rate of 74%. And a currency that suffers a rate of inflation of 74% can hardly be called "sound and "stable".

[WhiskeyPapa]

The 6th Tennessee Cavalry, USA, killed a captured Confederate soldier(20 in number) in cold blood at every mile marker from Pocohontas to Purdy, Tennessee and even skinned two of them alive.

I was coming to a conclusion and your noting this 6th Tennessee Cavalry has helped cement it, as the commanding officer, Hurst, was a slave holder.

The institution of slavery helped degrade and cheapen all human life in the CSA. That is why there were so many more incidents of murder and massacre by CSA forces than by US forces.

How does that sound?

I think Robert E. Lee might have agreed with that sentiment.

The following is a letter written by Robert E. Lee to his wife on Dec. 27, 1856.

"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strong for the former. The blacks are immeasureably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially, & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy … While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it all the aid of our prayers & all justified means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the results in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but a day."

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Hey, I found that newsgroup note from 1999 where the "rebmaster" over at the League of the South threatened me.

"Mr. Davis sends:

Walt, whiskpop3@aol.com was recorded about a week ago. Just wanted you to know you are being watched. If this trend continues, the following list of email addresses you regsitered in the past will be used as evidence and be given to the proper authorities at AOL for a possible cancelation on your account.

walterm140@aol.com
lngremmbr@aol.com
rojolobo1@aol.com
cutiedomi@aol.com
volsgoone@aol.com
rubyeg@aol.co
tennfierce@aol.com
histry101@aol.com
histry1001@aol.com
histry1oo1@aol.com
unionmn17@aol.com
whiskpop@aol.com
whiskpop1@aol.com
popwhisk2@aol.com
whiskpop3@aol.com

My advice is to quit abusing the Dixie Perspective rebboard. John Davis Rebmaster, Dixie Perspective"

Cool, huh?

They are not real big on free speech at the League of the South.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

I will agree to modify my comments to 'relatively stable currency' or 'stable currency when compared with the confederate dollar', which ever you prefer. How about that?

[Non-Sequitur]

They are not real big on free speech at the League of the South.

They weren't real big on free speech in the original confederacy, either. I've just started "Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism" by Mark Neely. Quite an eye-opener.

[Aurelius]

That's fine with me. I think it is accurate to say that the greenbacks were a more stable currency than Confederate money.

But if anyone is holding Confederate money, hold onto it. Next time we go out, it will be honored again.