Lincoln’s 'Second American Revolution'

LewRockwell ^ | November 23, 2002 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[stainlessbanner]

This paper is based on a talk given at the annual Christmas banquet of the Richmond Civil War Roundtable in Richmond, Virginia, on November 12, 2002.

[TBP]

El bumpo for later reading and comment. I like what I've seen so far.

[Gunslingr3]

ping for reading later

[philo]

Oh Oh , mention the name Lincoln here and all hell breaks loose.

[Fish out of Water]

bump

[warchild9]

Sir, we need to concentrate on preserving our Southern Nation during the current and future breakup of the Federal Union.

[Non-Sequitur]

One of the most absurd Lincoln myths is that he was devoted to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

By this definition then, claiming that the southern leadersip was devoted to the principles of the Delalaration of Independence is even more ridiculous.

[stainlessbanner]

Comments, Gentlemen?

[stainlessbanner]

Join the discussion

[stainlessbanner]

Bump

[Colt .45]

Mr. Dilorenzo hits the nail on the head again! And the truth shall set you free!

But the damnYankee Lincoln sycophants are already coming out of the woodwork. They refuse to see the truth, because to see it would be to admit that they lied and have been perpetuating that lie for years! See how this Non-Sequiter character always trys to misdirect and do the smoke and mirrors routine with his "Well the South did this, or the South didn't do that." He never does want to pony up to the wrong that Lincoln's henchmen did. Both he and Walt are charter members of the "Historical Dummies Club". Only thing to Non-Sequiter's credit is I don't think he's a socialist like Walt is.

[4CJ]

DiLorenzo is spot on. Lincoln fought against state sovereignty and the priciples of the Declaration.

[shuckmaster]

Score another big point for DiLorenzo

[billbears]

"There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children," he said in his 1852 eulogy to Henry Clay. Ten years later, in his December 1, 1862 message to Congress, he said, "I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization." He held these views until the day he died.

DiLorenzo hits the nail on the head again

"Above the Constitution, even above the Declaration, as an expression of American principles, is the magnanimous figure of Lincoln," wrote Jaffa’s colleague Charles Kessler in National Review (July 6, 1979)

That's the problem right there. To accept what lincoln did as right in any shape or form is to completely deny the documents upon which this nation was founded and gave him his leadership role. And there are some even today that would apply this to other Presidents. Apparently it doesn't matter if it's Constitutional, it's being done it for the good of the people.

[Non-Sequitur]

I notice that you are not denying that, by DiLusional's definition, the south no more lived up to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence than the Union did. I'm amazed that he could try and condemn Lincoln on the 'all men are created equal part' and keep a straight face. And add to it the tyrannical acts of Jefferson Davis and the way he pooped all over the confederate constitution and the confederate people and the article becomes even more ridiculous.

[Non-Sequitur]

He held these views until the day he died.

"We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature,tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude. Freedom only injures the slave. The innate stamp of inferiority is beyond the reach of change. You cannot change the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as slavery enables him to be." - Jefferson Davis, March 1861.

So did Jefferson Davis.

[Maelstrom]

I didn't see a defense of the South here, merely the tacit acknowledgement and explanation of the initiating Evil.

The illogical argument "everybody does it so it must be O.K." argument should have died with the end of the Clinton Administration.

[Non-Sequitur]

The illogical argument "everybody does it so it must be O.K." argument should have died with the end of the Clinton Administration.

Read my posts again and tell me where I said any of these kinds of actions were OK? I'm just trying to provide some balance here. Like Fox News, fair and balanced reporting? If you want to say that, based on DiLorenzo's criteria, neither the North or the confederacy came close to living up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence then that's a start. If you want to debate which side was worse about it then bring it on. But if you want to insist that the confederate leadership where the true guardians of the spirit of the founding fathers as contained in the Declaration of Independence then you are as DiLusional as Tommy is.

[A2J]

Oh Oh , mention the name Lincoln here and all hell breaks loose.

Maybe because he's trying to escape from there?

Deo Vindice!

[A2J]

Why does your flag have only 34 stars?

Are you recognizing (finally) that the South seceded as a separate nation?