H.L. Mencken on Abraham Lincoln

"Five Men at Random," Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76. | H.L. Mencken

[dighton]

Dump.

Half-dump, in gratitude for small mercies. Mencken is generally readable, even when trotted out by the "Lincoln's Victims Never Have a Nice Day" crowd. Besides, it's vastly better than raimondo's junk, which H.R. Gross used to post regularly.

Then again, what *isn't* better?

[r9etb]

Slavery was a minor issue in the Civil War.

Next I suppose you'll be telling us that Islam is a religion of peace.

Let us suppose that slavery was indeed a minor issue in the civil war. Why did the South secede, then? (And why did slavery figure so prominently in those wily Southerners' Declarations of Secession?)

[Treebeard]

So, in your view, calling people who don't share your views of Lincoln's deity "idiots" is acceptable within your parameters of civilized debate? Perhaps you're the liberal. You come out with insults, and when you reap results in return, you counter with "he broke the rules of civilized debate by insulting!"

[Marianne]

His early speeches were mere empty fire-works-the hollow rodomontades of the era.
Rodomontade n [MF fr. lt Rodomonte character in Orlando Innamorato by Matteo M. Boiardo
1 a bragging speech
2. vain boasting or bluster

[El Sordo]

There were many reasons; tariffs that punished southern industry in favor of northern industry, sovereignty issues, dandy stuff like that. Such issues took up far more room in their declarations than slavery.

Ref:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
http://ngeorgia.com/history/wh y.html

[TheDon]

I can take the insults, as long as they are in the context of a debate on a topic. I have little interest in debates which strictly involve insults.

[TheDon]

Your reply is correct, except for the last sentence. Try imagining a reason for the South to secede if slavery had never been introduced to the Americas. You even state, "Slaves states on the Union side were exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation." The reason they were exempt was to keep them from joining the Confederacy.

[Treebeard]

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I am not interested in debating this issue, and neither is Walt, Non-S, Illbay, Ditto, X, etc. I and they know that neither side will change any minds by means either persuasive or pejorative.

It's not a big deal to me that they think Lincoln was a minor deity. I used to like devilled ham, too, but I got over it. The issue I have is that the pro-Lincoln faction always comes on here with sneering condescension toward anyone who does not share their view. Southerners are all crackers, slack jawed yokels, hicks, cousin-f***in, banjo playing morons. Anyone who displays the slightest hint of reverence or respect toward a dead Confederate soldier is ridiculed, called a "venerator of losers", racists, supporters of slavery, etc.

In that sense, your characterization of these threads as a debate, per se, is inaccurate. This is an electronic shouting match in which both sides trot out their pet quotes and belittle each other. I have been dragged into that, and I have done my share of belittling. It's really distracting and takes away from my rereading of Shelby Foote and Paul Johnson's History of the American People.(Go ahead, Walt and Non-S, tell me those aren't viable sources).

Thus, I'm going to stop and return to that pursuit. I have done lots of family history research and have stood at the graves of uncles, cousins, grandfathers, etc, that died in that war. It's disgusting to hear them called "perpetual losers" or "slave holding sons of bitches", or to read the sentiments that they "deserved to die" as traitors, or hopes that they are "rotting in hell".

One of the great physicists of the "Golden Era", perhaps De Broglie, said something to the effect that no theory gains acceptance because its opponents are suddenly converted to it, but rather because the opponents gradually die off and a new generation arises that has grown up with it.

[stainlessbanner]

herewegoagain....

[parsifal]

Mencken was great. I love hum. Great post! parsy.

[Orual]

[shuckmaster]

America's tyrant ping!

[stainlessbanner]

Try imagining a reason for the South to secede if slavery had never been introduced to the Americas

How 'bout these in addition to South Carolinas attempts to secede.....

• 1798-99: Virginia and Kentucky Resolves - states could nullify national law if they violated individual state rights
• 1804: Massachusetts plotted to secede and tried to get New York to withdraw from the union and establish a "Northern Confederacy".
• 1807: Embargo Act New Jersey was going to secede due prohibition of foreign trade
• 1814: Delegates from several New England states threatened to secede over President James Madison's war policies against England.
• 1844: The Massachusetts Legislature threatened secession when Congress started debating whether to admit Texas into the Union.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Do you want to see Walt's latest find?

A Note On Footnotes(Lincoln Bashing)

[teeman8r]

i'd have to side with the others on this, don, it seems that you threw the first insult in your "debating"...

although maryland was never a union state, but a borderstate forced to remaining loyal by submission...

as for lincoln, our state song says it best... "maryland my maryland" ...

[Rebelo3]

<> Geez Don, Delaware and New Jersey join the Confederacy?

[TheDon]

I would like the record to show that in my mocking of DiLorenzo's attempts at rewriting American history, I have not portrayed the South, or in particular, the Southern soldier in a bad light. In fact I have not mentioned them at all.

But, so you will not have any misconceptions about what I think about the Confederacy, and those who fought for their cause, I will tell you that I hold the soldiers on both sides in the highest esteem. On both sides there were acts of great courage, loyalty, and self-sacrifice. I have read accounts of Civil War battles which have left me in awe of the common soldier of the South.

One can debate the cause of the South, and the North, without attacking those who fought well for their cause. This includes politicians as well as military leaders. If there are those who while attacking the arguments of DiLorenzo, resort to attacking the common soldier, or the South in general, that is unfortunate. I have not engaged in enough of these "discussions" on FR to say whether this is the usual, so I will take your word for it.

I too am a lover of history, but I am cautious about whose versions of history I will read. There are some out there who have a particular axe to grind and distort the history to suit their point of view. It is a waste of time to read "history" of that nature. Trying to filter out the point of view of the author from the historical fact becomes very difficult, and often the reader finds themselves infected with false history, and false views.

I would add, if it is not already apparent, that I do not think one has to defend the cause of the South, to uphold the honor, and good name, of those who fought for that cause. I do not doubt they believed in their cause every bit as much as the North did in theirs.

As there were many men who were willing, and in fact, did die for the Confederacy, it should not be surprising that there are many today who feel they were in the right. Your observation that many on these threads are engaged not in debate, but an "electronic shouting match", is probably correct. In that case, what is the point in posting this material? In particular, in the News forum?

Just as you do not like the South being bad mouthed, nor do I for that matter, neither do those of us who feel the North was in the right, like to see Lincoln being bad mouthed.

[TheDon]

My insult was in regard to an argument of DiLorenzo's, not against any of the posters. It is a subtle difference, but I'm sure you can see it. ;)

[TheDon]

???

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

We can actually thank(?) Robert Dale Owen for that Proclamation.

Heck, he even helped screw up the American Public School system . . .