Jefferson vs Lincoln

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I’ve done this before, from Thomas Delorenzo’s book, and you simply pooh-poohed the author.[/quote]

Dilorenzo is a discredited hack, but I (and others) poo-poo’ed his Godawful arguments first and merely took liberty of calling a hack a hack. Not only did I address DiLorenzo’s buffoonish errors, but Jack Dempsey and DrSekptix did as well.

[/quote]

Like they say at the horse races: “And…they’re off.”

DiLorenzo lists (re-read that) quotes and statements from others. Again and again, he QUOTES OTHERS. But then… you dismiss him as a hack. A ‘hack’ that lists quotes and facts…

Yeah.

How about you show me the exact part of the Constitution that says the Federal government may send armed troops to invade a state? Show me where the civilians of the invaded states may have their possessions taken from them or burned.

Don’t give the tired out excuse of ‘Do your own work.’ You’re the expert. You know where it is. Enlighten us. Show us ‘the money’.
[/quote]

Since it has already been established (both here and by the Supreme Court in 1869) that secession is and was illegal, consequentially we know that the Southern states did not have sovereignty. A sovereign state means that its laws are the highest authority in that state; the highest authority in every state is the federal government.

The Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as an agreement between people, not states. Likewise, the Court established that state law can never override federal law and that a dispersement of the Union (secession) is illegal.

Now to the part where it says that the Federal Government may invade a state and so on. This is from Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution:

“To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…”

Since secession was illegal and the Southerners illegally seized federal property, I’d say that they fit into the category of insurrectionists. Let me know if this is not satisfactory enough for you and I will continue to fill this thread with similar evidence.

142

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Thunderbolt again hits the nail on the head. I have practically begged for some sort of primary evidence from the revisionists throughout this thread, but have received virtually nothing. Bill Roberts came close by providing a couple of quotes from Lincoln that revealed him to be a racist. But the way in which he used them to support his assertions demonstrated that he had little understanding of the context in which the quotes were made.

However, NOBODY on this thread (unless I missed a response somewhere) has claimed that Lincoln was not a racist, so Bill’s evidence only served to further an argument that no one was making with him.

Once Bill realized there was nothing in the historical record to support his argument, he disappeared from the thread, only to return in order to make childish comparisons of secession to leaving this thread.

Several people have asserted that secession was legal. However, I have provided a clearcut, accurate explanation as to why secession has always been illegal. The 1869 Texas v. White ruling backs me up 100% on this. The secessionists on this thread have largely ignored this.

There has also been a criticism of Lincoln for not freeing all the slaves with the issuance of the EP. But Lincoln did not have this power and it is dubious as to whether or not he had the power to free any of the slaves, let alone ones in border states that were not directly at war with the North.

Once these arguments were proven incorrect on the behalf of the secessionists, they started to cling to the myth that Sherman and Lincoln advocated a policy of rape and murder of babies and whatnot. This too is false and an examination of the historical record demonstrates as much.

I’m not sure how much longer this thread can continue without devolving into pure bullshit on the part of the Southern apologists.

Oh yeah, one other thing. Pushharder, I’m still curious to know how you feel about Southerners throwing lavish parties while their fellow, poorer Southerners starved to death. And how do you feel about other Southerners taking advantage of the shortage of common goods to make money off the backs of starving, destitute fellow Southerners? Please tell me, or again, do you only direct your twisted sense of injustice toward Northerners. [/quote]

Cooper, I think your chute never opened and you must of hit your head on a stump after your exit from that Northwest Airlines flight but you apparently didn’t die; you just suffer from fits of rage, I guess. Relax or you’ll be mopping cortisol up off your floor for days.

For you to gloss over Sherman’s March and try and convince readers of this thread that not much happened in the way of wholesale destruction of civilians and their property not to mention the carpetbagging that followed the War shows you to be a rabid ideologue who deserves very little more of my time.

Your last paragraph is a cow pie too. Don’t remember that coming up in this discussion.

Calm down. We’re not discussing the legality of abortion in 21st century America. This is 150 year old history. Good fuckin grief, boy.[/quote]

I’ll ask again: how do you feel about the abuse of Southerners at the hands of their fellow Southerners, as I’ve previously illustrated. Or do you not believe that what I have stated happened? If you don’t believe this then a) we’re clearly not on the same level regarding our knowledge of the Civil War, and b) I’d be more than happy to provide primary evidence backing up my question to you.

You see, that’s what you do to further one’s argument in relation to historical matters: you provide historical evidence rather than avoiding the issue by focusing on my cortisol levels and claiming that I “deserve very little more of [your] time.”

143

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I’ve done this before, from Thomas Delorenzo’s book, and you simply pooh-poohed the author.[/quote]

Dilorenzo is a discredited hack, but I (and others) poo-poo’ed his Godawful arguments first and merely took liberty of calling a hack a hack. Not only did I address DiLorenzo’s buffoonish errors, but Jack Dempsey and DrSekptix did as well.

[/quote]

Like they say at the horse races: “And…they’re off.”

DiLorenzo lists (re-read that) quotes and statements from others. Again and again, he QUOTES OTHERS. But then… you dismiss him as a hack. A ‘hack’ that lists quotes and facts…

Yeah.

How about you show me the exact part of the Constitution that says the Federal government may send armed troops to invade a state? Show me where the civilians of the invaded states may have their possessions taken from them or burned.

Don’t give the tired out excuse of ‘Do your own work.’ You’re the expert. You know where it is. Enlighten us. Show us ‘the money’.
[/quote]

Since it has already been established (both here and by the Supreme Court in 1869) that secession is and was illegal, consequentially we know that the Southern states did not have sovereignty. A sovereign state means that its laws are the highest authority in that state; the highest authority in every state is the federal government.

The Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as an agreement between people, not states. Likewise, the Court established that state law can never override federal law and that a dispersement of the Union (secession) is illegal.

Now to the part where it says that the Federal Government may invade a state and so on. This is from Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution:

“To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…”

Since secession was illegal and the Southerners illegally seized federal property, I’d say that they fit into the category of insurrectionists. Let me know if this is not satisfactory enough for you and I will continue to fill this thread with similar evidence.[/quote]

So since secession was declared illegal in 1869, that must have meant that a ruling had not been made prior to 1869. Otherwise the court would not have taken it up, citing precedent.

Thanks! You just destroyed you and TB’s argument. Well done!

I also didn’t know that Federal troops are militia. Or that, if some citizens of a state seize Federal property, then all of them are ‘the enemy’. General Sherman didn’t distinguish between them (or even women and children) so why should you?

144

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

Wait, are you talking about “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War”? This has been on my ‘to read’ list for the longest time. (Serious question).[/quote]

Yes, that is one of his, if memory serves - DiLorenzo has published a number.

In all seriousness - and I say this without an ounce of exaggeration - DiLorenzo is a complete waste of your time. DiLorenzo cobbles together poorly researched and argued polemics that simply sell books to wannabe revolutionaries who confuse what he writes with bona fide criticism and analysis. You can drive cruise ships through the holes in his theses.

145

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I’ve done this before, from Thomas Delorenzo’s book, and you simply pooh-poohed the author.[/quote]

Dilorenzo is a discredited hack, but I (and others) poo-poo’ed his Godawful arguments first and merely took liberty of calling a hack a hack. Not only did I address DiLorenzo’s buffoonish errors, but Jack Dempsey and DrSekptix did as well.

[/quote]

Like they say at the horse races: “And…they’re off.”

DiLorenzo lists (re-read that) quotes and statements from others. Again and again, he QUOTES OTHERS. But then… you dismiss him as a hack. A ‘hack’ that lists quotes and facts…

Yeah.

How about you show me the exact part of the Constitution that says the Federal government may send armed troops to invade a state? Show me where the civilians of the invaded states may have their possessions taken from them or burned.

Don’t give the tired out excuse of ‘Do your own work.’ You’re the expert. You know where it is. Enlighten us. Show us ‘the money’.
[/quote]

Since it has already been established (both here and by the Supreme Court in 1869) that secession is and was illegal, consequentially we know that the Southern states did not have sovereignty. A sovereign state means that its laws are the highest authority in that state; the highest authority in every state is the federal government.

The Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as an agreement between people, not states. Likewise, the Court established that state law can never override federal law and that a dispersement of the Union (secession) is illegal.

Now to the part where it says that the Federal Government may invade a state and so on. This is from Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution:

“To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…”

Since secession was illegal and the Southerners illegally seized federal property, I’d say that they fit into the category of insurrectionists. Let me know if this is not satisfactory enough for you and I will continue to fill this thread with similar evidence.[/quote]

I regret using the word “invade” above. Since the South had no legal right to secede and therefore was always a part of the U.S., albeit an insurrectionist part, the Federal Govt never really “invaded” anything in the first place.

Also, since the Constitution was never meant to establish what can and cannot be done in warfare, expecting to find where it establishes that the Fed Govt can burn houses and so forth is like expecting the owner’s manual of a Corvette to establish whether or not you can dump the clutch at 7000rpms and smoke the shit out of the tires.

146

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

Wait, are you talking about “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War”? This has been on my ‘to read’ list for the longest time. (Serious question).[/quote]

Yes, that is one of his, if memory serves - DiLorenzo has published a number.

In all seriousness - and I say this without an ounce of exaggeration - DiLorenzo is a complete waste of your time. DiLorenzo cobbles together poorly researched and argued polemics that simply sell books to wannabe revolutionaries who confuse what he writes with bona fide criticism and analysis. You can drive cruise ships through the holes in his theses.

[/quote]

I can back this up. I have a degree in history and my professor in Civil War History was/is a highly respected expert in the Civil War with a BA from Berkeley, a Master’s from Harvard and a PhD from Stanford and has a couple of books under her belt. She studied history under and was mentored by William Gienapp, who was (until he died) one of the preeminent experts in Civil War history. I specifically remember her debunking some of the myths put forth by DiLorenzo after a student tried to argue a point with her and repeatedly referred back to DiLorenzo. Which book(s) he was referring to I can’t remember unfortunately.

As an aside, this professor (her name is Libra Hilde if anyone wants to look her books up on Amazon) used to teach in the South (I can’t remember exactly where, Alabama maybe) and she said that the revisionist history they teach down there in regards to the Civil War was almost comical.

147

Can’t you make an argument for the 10th amendment.

148

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I’ve done this before, from Thomas Delorenzo’s book, and you simply pooh-poohed the author.[/quote]

Dilorenzo is a discredited hack, but I (and others) poo-poo’ed his Godawful arguments first and merely took liberty of calling a hack a hack. Not only did I address DiLorenzo’s buffoonish errors, but Jack Dempsey and DrSekptix did as well.

[/quote]

Like they say at the horse races: “And…they’re off.”

DiLorenzo lists (re-read that) quotes and statements from others. Again and again, he QUOTES OTHERS. But then… you dismiss him as a hack. A ‘hack’ that lists quotes and facts…

Yeah.

How about you show me the exact part of the Constitution that says the Federal government may send armed troops to invade a state? Show me where the civilians of the invaded states may have their possessions taken from them or burned.

Don’t give the tired out excuse of ‘Do your own work.’ You’re the expert. You know where it is. Enlighten us. Show us ‘the money’.
[/quote]

Since it has already been established (both here and by the Supreme Court in 1869) that secession is and was illegal, consequentially we know that the Southern states did not have sovereignty. A sovereign state means that its laws are the highest authority in that state; the highest authority in every state is the federal government.

The Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as an agreement between people, not states. Likewise, the Court established that state law can never override federal law and that a dispersement of the Union (secession) is illegal.

Now to the part where it says that the Federal Government may invade a state and so on. This is from Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution:

“To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…”

Since secession was illegal and the Southerners illegally seized federal property, I’d say that they fit into the category of insurrectionists. Let me know if this is not satisfactory enough for you and I will continue to fill this thread with similar evidence.[/quote]

So since secession was declared illegal in 1869, that must have meant that a ruling had not been made prior to 1869. Otherwise the court would not have taken it up, citing precedent.

Thanks! You just destroyed you and TB’s argument. Well done!

I also didn’t know that Federal troops are militia. Or that, if some citizens of a state seize Federal property, then all of them are ‘the enemy’. General Sherman didn’t distinguish between them (or even women and children) so why should you?
[/quote]

Really? The Supreme Court simply established that the Constitution NEVER provided for legal secession. This ruling didn’t serve to alter the Constitution, it simply confirmed what Lincoln, Buchanan, Andrew Jackson, James Madison, etc, etc had been saying all along. In other words the Supreme Court simply established that secession had ALWAYS been illegal.

But you already understand this. I can tell that you’re a very intelligent person by your posts; you’re just wrong on this particular issue and rather than admit it and move on, you’d prefer to question the semantics of my arguments instead of examining your own beliefs and accept that you may in fact be wrong.

Look, I don’t think you’re an idiot by any measure and if you were to say “you know what DB, after giving it a lot of thought and looking at things from a perspective different from the one that I’ve looked at this issue from for years, I’ve realized that you’re right,” I’m not going to ridicule you or declare myself the victor in this argument. I don’t look at this discussion that way at all.

But please, don’t stop looking at everything I or Thunderbolt say as some “apologist viewpoint”. It would probably surprise you to know that I felt much the same way you do at one point. But I didn’t know then what I know now, and as I gained more knowledge in this area, my viewpoint changed as I accepted that I was wrong.

So let’s stop with the bullshit nitpicking. You know full well that the 1869 Supreme Court ruling did not ever remotely imply that secession was in any way legal up to that point.

150

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

DiLorenzo lists (re-read that) quotes and statements from others. Again and again, he QUOTES OTHERS. But then… you dismiss him as a hack. A ‘hack’ that lists quotes and facts…

Yeah.[/quote]

Awesome. DiLorenzo lists “quotes”. Well, why didn’t you just say so? So focused on his awful arguments, I had no idea he listed “quotes”.

You mean other than this, which I have directed you to at least four times?

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

There is nothing tired about it. I’ve practically written a treatise here on T-Nation on this topic, and others have too. Yet the end result is the same - no worthwhile counterargument (minus Push). You don’t provide it.

There is no presumption of the right of secession in the Constitution. Every presumption cuts against it. So, superstar, explain why you are so certain of it. Shouldn’t be that hard, if it such an afterthought.

I’ve said my piece on the matter. Looking forward to hearing your airtight case on the issue.

151

Another point HeadHunter:

The term militia is used because there was no standing peacetime Army at the time. The Constitution also provides for the power to establish an army, navy and so on. Although the Continental Navy and Army had been established by 1776 (or was it the Marines?), there was no standing army, hence the language in 1789 giving Congress the power to establish one and the use of the word militia.

But the Constitution grants the ability to make war and to use the armed forces. What better and more appropriate time to use the armed forces than when a group of insurrectionists illegally seizes federal property, including federal forts, under threat of violence?

152

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

So since secession was declared illegal in 1869, that must have meant that a ruling had not been made prior to 1869. Otherwise the court would not have taken it up, citing precedent.

Thanks! You just destroyed you and TB’s argument. Well done![/quote]

That doesn’t even make sense.

Back then, when “federal troops” were needed, with no standing army, they called for volunteers from state militia.

Keep this up and us “Lincoln apologists” are going to have to send you a bill for tuition.

153

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

This is a related, but somewhat deflected line of questioning. At what point does the departure from constitutional principles become great enough to override the insurrections and rebellions clause? In other words, are we forever bound to submission to any and all political power structures whatever so long as they’re elected by a majority?[/quote]

Great point and question - and I’d say no. We always retain our natural right of revolution. Once we have had our rights denied, we can invoke the right of revolution to throw off an immoral government.

That is the essence of the DOI. That is the essence of our revolt against England.

154

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I’ll ask again: how do you feel about the abuse of Southerners at the hands of their fellow Southerners, as I’ve previously illustrated.[/quote]

I don’t recall you “illustrating” that. I must’ve missed it.[quote]

Or do you not believe that what I have stated happened? If you don’t believe this then a) we’re clearly not on the same level regarding our knowledge of the Civil War, [/quote]

Whoa, hoss. Don’t give me this idea that I have to run around believing everything you state as deity inspired or we’re clearly not on the same level. Maybe we’re not, come to think of it. I’ve had to school you on several points already and I never touched the low hanging fruit of the Hiroshima comparison where I could’ve put the cat-of-nine tails to your backside.

Sure, sounds relevant. Have at it.[quote]

You see, that’s what you do to further one’s argument in relation to historical matters: you provide historical evidence rather than avoiding the issue by focusing on my cortisol levels and claiming that I “deserve very little more of [your] time.”[/quote]

A tad bit too precocious ye be.[/quote]

Look up “Richmond Bread Riots” for starters. And while you do, chew on this tidbit of primary evidence. The following is from the Jan 29, 1863 Richmond Dispatch newspaper and illustrates the anger Southerners felt toward those in the South who “extorted” their fellow Southerners as the price of food skyrocketed. The list in the paper is much longer than the one I will provide, but the first several items illustrate the point well enough without having to get into the price of tea, lard, butter, meal, candles, soap, salt and pepper.

"The state of affairs brought about by the speculating and extortion practiced upon the public cannot be better illustrated than by the following grocery bill for one week for a small family, in which the prices before the war and those of the present are compared:

1860 1863
bacon, 10lbs at $.12 1/2= $1.25 10 lbs at $1.00= $10.00
flour, 30 lbs at $.05= $1.50 30 lbs at $.12 1/2= $3.75
sugar, 5 lbs at $.08= $.40 5 lbs at $1.15= $5.75
coffee, 4 lbs at $.12 1/2= $.50 4 lbs at $5= $20.00

So much we owe the speculators, who have stayed at home to prey upon the necessities of their fellow-citizens."

Here is an excerpt from the diary of John B. Jones, a clerk in the southern War Dept in Richmond originally published in 1866. Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy and extremely typical of the plight of Southerners everywhere.

“January 18, 1863- We are now, in effect, in a state of siege, and none but the opulent, often those who have defrauded the government, can obtain a sufficiency of food and raiment.”
"October 22, 1863- A poor woman yesterday applied to a merchant in Carey Street to purchase a barrel of flour. The price he demanded was $70. ‘My God,’ exclaimed she, ‘how can I pay such prices? I have seven children; what shall I do?’ ‘I don’t know, madam,’ said he, coolly, ‘unless you eat your children.’
“August 13, 1864- Flour is falling. It is now $200 per barrel-$500 a few weeks ago…a merchant said to me yesterday that there was at least 18 months’ supply (for the people) of breadstuffs and meats in the city; and pointing to the upper windows at the corner of 13th and Carey Streets…he said that flour had been there two years, held for ‘still higher prices.’…such is the greed of extortioners.”

So you see, while you go on and on about Sherman’s tactics (which were to hasten the end of war) the real starving going on was at the hands of fellow Southerners for a cause much less noble than the quick resolution of war: greed. Note that these entries are also well before Sherman’s march. So, how does this make you feel? Do you now wish that the war had been ended sooner, regardless of who won, in order that the starving of Southerners at the hands of other Southerners could be ended?

To the rest of the revisionists: this is how you use primary evidence to back up an argument.

155

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Dilorenzo is a discredited hack, but I (and others) poo-poo’ed his Godawful arguments first and merely took liberty of calling a hack a hack. Not only did I address DiLorenzo’s buffoonish errors, but Jack Dempsey and DrSekptix did as well.

[/quote]

Wait, are you talking about “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War”? This has been on my ‘to read’ list for the longest time. (Serious question).[/quote]

Steely, don’t listen to Blunder. Read the book for yourself and make your own decisions.

I’ve read the book too.

Blunder is T-Nation’s resident statist and defends the US government no matter what it does. He’s done this since day one of posting here. “The Real Lincoln” exposes (dis)Honest Abe for the criminal he was, and well, Blunder just can’t handle it.

156

Pushharder and HeadHunter:

There are also many examples of the South seizing the property of SOUTHERNERS for the war effort. I suppose it’s a matter of personal ethics, but what’s worse: the North confiscating Southern property such as Sherman did, or Southerners doing this to their fellow Southerners well before Sherman’s march.

In John B. Jones’ diary he mentions the seizure of property and the appropriation of food to Confederate soldiers while the people of Richmond literally starved to death. Here is a short excerpt from a letter from Capt. Daniel O’Leary of the 15th Kentucky Infantry to his pro-confederacy wife echoing the same sentiments:

Dec. 29th, 1863

“The sooner peace is restored the better for the southern people as they are the real sufferers, driven from their homes, their property destroyed or taken for the use of the army…”

157

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Dilorenzo is a discredited hack, but I (and others) poo-poo’ed his Godawful arguments first and merely took liberty of calling a hack a hack. Not only did I address DiLorenzo’s buffoonish errors, but Jack Dempsey and DrSekptix did as well.

[/quote]

Wait, are you talking about “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War”? This has been on my ‘to read’ list for the longest time. (Serious question).[/quote]

Steely, don’t listen to Blunder. Read the book for yourself and make your own decisions.

I’ve read the book too.

Blunder is T-Nation’s resident statist and defends the US government no matter what it does. He’s done this since day one of posting here. “The Real Lincoln” exposes (dis)Honest Abe for the criminal he was, and well, Blunder just can’t handle it.

[/quote]

Don’t read the book at all. Read “The Civil War and Reconstruction: A Documentary Collection” edited by William E. Gienapp. It contains strictly primary evidence in the form of newspaper articles, letters, diaries, speeches and so forth from Southern and Northern politicians, soldiers, wives, generals and other officers, Lincoln, Davis, etc, etc. Since it is entirely driven by primary sources, the book is entirely without bias and makes for a perfect stepping stone toward viewing the Civil War as objectively as possible.

I recommended that everyone with a revisionist slant (yes you Bill, Headhunter and Pushharder) read it at the beginning of this thread, but obviously no one has taken me up on it. Remember, the study of history is driven by the evaluation of primary evidence, not the application of selective pieces of evidence that support a preconceived thesis, as in the case of DiLorenzo.

159

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Dilorenzo is a discredited hack, but I (and others) poo-poo’ed his Godawful arguments first and merely took liberty of calling a hack a hack. Not only did I address DiLorenzo’s buffoonish errors, but Jack Dempsey and DrSekptix did as well.

[/quote]

Wait, are you talking about “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War”? This has been on my ‘to read’ list for the longest time. (Serious question).[/quote]

Steely, don’t listen to Blunder. Read the book for yourself and make your own decisions.

I’ve read the book too.

Blunder is T-Nation’s resident statist and defends the US government no matter what it does. He’s done this since day one of posting here. “The Real Lincoln” exposes (dis)Honest Abe for the criminal he was, and well, Blunder just can’t handle it.

[/quote]

Don’t read the book at all. Read “The Civil War and Reconstruction: A Documentary Collection” edited by William E. Gienapp. It contains strictly primary evidence in the form of newspaper articles, letters, diaries, speeches and so forth from Southern and Northern politicians, soldiers, wives, generals and other officers, Lincoln, Davis, etc, etc.[/quote]

DiLorenzo uses primary sources as well. What’s your point?

[quote]
I recommended that everyone with a revisionist slant (yes you Bill, Headhunter and Pushharder) read it at the beginning of this thread, but obviously no one has taken me up on it. Remember, the study of history is driven by the evaluation of primary evidence, not the application of selective pieces of evidence that support a preconceived thesis, as in the case of DiLorenzo.[/quote]

Remember, that history is written by the victors. Hence all the fapping over Lincoln, who was a tyrant and a criminal.

160

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Setting aside Lincoln’s purported intentions in this regard and despite my own previous words to the thieving parachutist about this being 150 year old history, I do think a valid case can be made that as a result of Lincoln’s actions the federal government began to grow beyond what original intent would allow. So to a certain extent this discussion is relevant today.

I do know that as an 1860 Republican (the Republican Party being the progeny of the Federalists, the moderate Whigs) Lincoln would’ve been considered to be a broad constructionist of the Constitution, as opposed to the Jeffersonian Republicans, the anti-federalists (who eventually became the Democratic Party) who believed in a very strict construction and very limited federal government.

Broad constructionism is a cancer today. What we see today would cause the anti-federalists of yesterday, i.e., Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, et al, to wag their fingers with a resounding, “I TOLD YOU SO” and cause the Federalists, i.e., Washington, Hamilton, Adams, to moan in agony, “We never meant it to go so far. We’re so sorry.”[/quote]