[Thebaddog]

My sense is that Lincoln wisely set the level of the debate for the love of freedom by all men and not just the brothers. Today's climate where the brothers make their color the whole story is the obverse and corrosively negative end of the debate that Lincoln framed.

[Ditto]

Bump

[driftless]

I'd loved to have placed all the Lincoln-haters in chains, and see then what they'd have thought about a man who liberated them. It's easy to yammer about states rights when you were not a slave.

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm looking forward to all the posts from the southron contingent giving quotes from the Southern leaders that show their views towards blacks were much more compasionate and enlightened than were Lincoln's. Surely they must have some?

[GOPcapitalist]

A minor scholar, an economist by the name of Thomas DiLorenzo

Now isn't that interesting. It seems our good friend Richard is making his argument against 'the Real Lincoln' by attacking DiLorenzo's personal scholarly credentials. This claim is very peculiar as it reveal as much about its author as it does about the person he's attacking. Let's compare these two individual's scholarly credentials:

Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo -
Professor of Economics, Loyola College (Maryland)
Amazon.com identifies him as the author of at least 11 published books.
An academic journal database search has multiple hits for DiLorenzo as a published author.

Dr. Richard Ferrier -
Tutor, Thomas Aquinas College (California)
Amazon.com identifies him as the author of ZERO published books. His college's website identifies him as the co-author of a forthcoming "e-textbook" that is available for download off the internet.
An academic journal database search identifies Ferrier as the author of ZERO published journal articles out of several hundred listings searched.

And in the unlikely event that rdf is still out there watching...sorry Dick, but you'd be advised to look in the mirror first the next time you wish to call somebody else a "minor scholar." Other than that, have a nice day!

[shuckmaster]

I'm certainly glad to see DiLorenzo set the record straight about America's awful tyrant. It's no surprise to see there's a tiny handful of losers who are upset that the great war criminal has been exposed in spite of all effort to cover up his atrocities.

[sheltonmac]

A minor scholar, an economist by the name of Thomas DiLorenzo, has been on an anti-Lincoln Jihad throughout the year 2002.

Please. Do the defenders of the South constantly have to be referred to--even indirectly--as terrorists?

[WhiskeyPapa]

"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party—and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say this is probably true—that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere quiet power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And having begun He could give the final victor to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds."

A. Lincoln, 1862

[Trickyguy]

DiLorenzo may be "a minor scholar," but Ferrier is no scholar at all.

[jimt]

This article is a sad attempt to whitewash Lincoln's attitudes and statements.

Lincoln freed the slaves IN THE SOUTH ONLY and YEARS into the war as a political move. He was a consummate politician, not some great moral leader. If it's a great moral leader you want, look to Washington.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

This is a fascinating take on Lincoln's apparent racism -- the author seems to be saying that Lincoln wasn't a racist at all -- that he only pretended to be a racist because it was so widespread at the time -- to openly speak out against racism would have ruined his chances for election -- "public opinion is everything" -- he would have been unelectable had he espoused full equality betwen the races -- therefore he deliberately equivocated in his language (using the word "perhaps" instead of "certainly" -- which was so subtle as to go completely unnoticed at the time) -- all the while dropping into his speeches measured doses of his true feelings -- escalating in honesty in each subsequent speech.

So, we have the progression of Lincoln's true sentiments, through all of his speeches -- yes, this is a fascinating thesis, one that deserves a closer look.