Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
And you are apparently unable mentally to distinguish the difference between freeing slaves and killing half a million US citizens. Somehow other countries managed to accomplish this feat without fratricide.

Pot meet kettle.


Purhapse a viewing of Spike Lee'd film Do the Right thing will help you understand.

Quote:
As if you know squat about sociology or history for that matter.

Heh, you got to him there :)

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by LessBread
States rights was and still is the excuse used by those who would exploit other people.

I wont disagree with that, but the converse is equally true. You as a liberal now do not see any reason, owning congress and the white house, not to grow leviatian as you please and wield its power to tell texans how they should treat their homosexuals. Laudable ends, horrible means.

Are you claiming that Federal Law is a horrible means?

Is this a rethorical question?

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Wont you forget to dismantle the beast before election time comes, and the texans will, if only out of vengeance, tell you what you can and cannot smoke in your golden state, or how you ought to treat your homosexuals?

If you're just now waking up from an 8 year sleep, let me tell you that Texans just finished up running the nation into the ground.

Dont know about you, but yeah, i noticed. A less obtuse reader might recognize the subtle reference to this fact in my writing.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
What net good is created in the long term by this zero sum game? None. At what cost?

Zero sum game? Are you trying out some new vocabulary?

Are you going to answer my question?

Not honestly, for we both know the answer, and we both know youll bite your tongue off before youll admit it.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Decent and just? You're crying about the lost rights of states that willingly denied any rights to millions of people, denied that they were even people, states that were so intent on continuing to deny those rights that they took up arms in rebellion against the Constitution. They tried to hide all that behind the feeble mantra of states rights and still do.

My point was that decency and justice exist outside of your narrow world view, depsite your ignorance of this fact. You're wasting time beating up a straw man.

I thought your point was to repeat your tired complaint that those who disagree with you believe the state is god. Talk about wasting time.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
As if you know squat about sociology or history for that matter.

Yeah for personal attacks! You're momma's so fat, she jumped up in the air...and got stuck.

After you cracked wise about socialist studies? Seriously, if you're gonna dish it out, then don't cry about it when it comes back to you.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Lincoln fought a Civil War. Bush and Cheney fought a war of their own choice.

You can't even be talked in to agreeing that the civil war was about a variety of issues, when virtually every war ever waged was about a variety of issues.. Nor can you seem to admit that Lincoln was indeed a tyrant. A reasonable approach would be to try and explain why he was a tyrant, but to do so would require you to admit you are a stalinist. Thus you beat up strawmen and post wiki articles. Feel free to carry on..

The Civil War was fought over a variety of issues, but the primary issue was slavery. Lincoln was not a tyrant as unreconstituted confederates such as yourself think. A tyrant would have called for serious revenge on the South. Lincoln called for reconciliation. A reasonable approach would not presume that he was a tyrant but would ask if he was and let the evidence speak to that, but that's not what you've done. You've latched on to one historian who's ideology you agree with and allowed him to dictate to you what you should think about the subject. Stalinism and wikipedia has nothing to do with any of this.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
You just regurgitating the Libertarian party line on Lincoln. Which is extremely ironic in that it positions Libertarians as defenders of slavery. Property rights first!

And you are apparently unable mentally to distinguish the difference between freeing slaves and killing half a million US citizens. Somehow other countries managed to accomplish this feat without fratricide.

As tit for tat this illustrates that you are regurgitating the illiberal mantra passed down to you by government approved hagiographers. Your logic is weak and unconnected, and speaks clearly as to the basis of your position.

Me- "I don't think we should have nuked Hiroshima."
You- "You want the Jews to be exterminated!"

Somehow slave owners in other countries didn't take up arms against their government when they outlawed slavery. Somehow slave owners in our country thought that treating people as property was so important that they were willing to go to war to preserve the practice. Apparently you are unable to mentally distinguish between right and wrong in this case. And when it comes to arguing strawmen, it doesn't get any worse than your two contrasting points of view - which concern WWII not the Civil War - and couldn't be more disconnected from this topic. Talk about weak logic.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
No, this debate flows from Lincoln's present day critics, who are less interested in clarifying the historical record than they are in propelling a political agenda. The resurrection of states rights began as backlash to the civil rights movement and proceeded from there with a reeducation effort starting with the evisceration of Lincoln. You're doing your best to push that project along. Property rights first!

And you feel compelled to maintain the deification of Lincoln because he embodies your ubermensch. Imprison political adversaries, squash free speech, order the slaughter of civilians, and wipe his ass with the Bill of Rights, all for the glory of your secular god. That's change YOU can believe in.

Did you bother to read the Douglass oration that I linked with? No, you didn't, because it doesn't deify Lincoln. As I wrote in my introduction to it - warts and all. It might surprise you, but it's possible to see Lincoln's faults without reaching the same extreme conclusions that you have. Lincoln had a rebellion to suppress. He ordered the slaughter of civilians? Who says that? Did he forcibly remove the Cherokee like Andrew Jackson? Clearly you're spinning hard. It's also clear you're particularly interested in using Lincoln to smear Obama. Tsk, tsk.

You may not appreciate this, but I think others will.

Lincoln's Laws of War: How he built the code that Bush attempted to destroy. (Feb. 11, 2009)

Quote:
...
The code reduced the international laws of war into a simple pamphlet for wide distribution to the amateur soldiers of the Union army. It prohibited torture, poisons, wanton destruction, and cruelty. It protected prisoners and forbade assassinations. It announced a sharp distinction between soldiers and noncombatants. And it forbade attacks motivated by revenge and the infliction of suffering for its own sake. Most significantly, the code sought to protect channels of communication between warring armies. And it elevated the truce flag to a level of sacred honor.

In the spring of 1863, Lincoln's code was given not just to the armies of the Union but to the armies of the Confederacy. The code set out the rules the Union would follow—and that the Union would expect the South to follow, too. For the next two years, prisoner-exchange negotiations relied on the code to set the rules for identifying those who were entitled to prisoner-of-war status. Trials of Southern guerilla fighters and other violators of the laws of war leaned on the code's rules for support. The Union war effort became far more aggressive than it had been under McClellan's rules. As the Union's fierce Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman put it, Lincoln brought the "hard hand of war" to the population of the South. But this more aggressive posture was not at odds with Lincoln's new code. It was the code's fulfillment.
...
Yet if soldiers still today carry around a little bit of Old Abe Lincoln in their pockets, the appeal of his approach to the laws of war has waned in recent decades. Today, the two leading paradigms for the laws of war are a humanitarian model and a war crimes model. The former would base the laws of war in individual human rights, the latter in the criminal tribunals like the one at Nuremberg after World War II.

In 1862 and 1863, Lincoln was up to something very different. His personal passage from law-of-war skeptic to law-of-war reviser in the midst of the Civil War offered him a distinctive vantage point. His code sought to organize the laws of war not around individual human rights or war crimes trials, but around reciprocity and coordination between armies. Lincoln's code set limits on his army's conduct, to be sure. But it also aimed to win a war. The function of Lincoln's laws of war was thus to identify and protect opportunities for cooperative behavior even in the clash of armed conflict.
...

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by LessBread
States rights was and still is the excuse used by those who would exploit other people.

I wont disagree with that, but the converse is equally true. You as a liberal now do not see any reason, owning congress and the white house, not to grow leviatian as you please and wield its power to tell texans how they should treat their homosexuals. Laudable ends, horrible means.

Are you claiming that Federal Law is a horrible means?

Is this a rethorical question?

No. I'm just trying to make sense of your bizarre assertions.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
What net good is created in the long term by this zero sum game? None. At what cost?

Zero sum game? Are you trying out some new vocabulary?

Are you going to answer my question?

Not honestly, for we both know the answer, and we both know youll bite your tongue off before youll admit it.

Your question is vague. What zero sum game are you talking about? Are you describing a true win-lose scenario or just making one up because it sounds good?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Lincoln fought a Civil War. Bush and Cheney fought a war of their own choice.

You can't even be talked in to agreeing that the civil war was about a variety of issues, when virtually every war ever waged was about a variety of issues.. Nor can you seem to admit that Lincoln was indeed a tyrant. A reasonable approach would be to try and explain why he was a tyrant, but to do so would require you to admit you are a stalinist. Thus you beat up strawmen and post wiki articles. Feel free to carry on..

Does anyone here actually disagree that there were other issues involved then simply slavery? From my reading of the thread, everyone acknowledges that the actors involved had different reasons for fighting. Certainly the majority of the combatants on both sides did not own slaves. Slavery was an important reason though, and thats the one that still interests people today. If you are trying to say that the South had other motives that you find nobler, that may be true, but you aren't likely to improve peoples opinion of their cause by pointing that out. As well try and say the Nazi's had some good things going for them with their strong belief in education, or their efficiency ;-). Again, from the mouth of their leaders, the ability to own other people was the foundation of their state.

Nobody can bring themselves to admit that Lincoln was a tyrant, because there is more then one view on that subject. I personally would have to hear how you reconcile the fact that he could easily have been removed after his first term by the American people with tyranny, before I'd place him in that category. You'd also have to reconcile the way he allowed the courts to strike down his suspension of habeas corpus. That doesn't seem like the act of a tyrant to me.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
You may not appreciate this, but I think others will.

Lincoln's Laws of War: How he built the code that Bush attempted to destroy. (Feb. 11, 2009)

Quote:
...
The code reduced the international laws of war into a simple pamphlet for wide distribution to the amateur soldiers of the Union army. It prohibited torture, poisons, wanton destruction, and cruelty. It protected prisoners and forbade assassinations. It announced a sharp distinction between soldiers and noncombatants. And it forbade attacks motivated by revenge and the infliction of suffering for its own sake. Most significantly, the code sought to protect channels of communication between warring armies. And it elevated the truce flag to a level of sacred honor.

In the spring of 1863, Lincoln's code was given not just to the armies of the Union but to the armies of the Confederacy. The code set out the rules the Union would follow—and that the Union would expect the South to follow, too. For the next two years, prisoner-exchange negotiations relied on the code to set the rules for identifying those who were entitled to prisoner-of-war status. Trials of Southern guerilla fighters and other violators of the laws of war leaned on the code's rules for support. The Union war effort became far more aggressive than it had been under McClellan's rules. As the Union's fierce Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman put it, Lincoln brought the "hard hand of war" to the population of the South. But this more aggressive posture was not at odds with Lincoln's new code. It was the code's fulfillment.
...
Yet if soldiers still today carry around a little bit of Old Abe Lincoln in their pockets, the appeal of his approach to the laws of war has waned in recent decades. Today, the two leading paradigms for the laws of war are a humanitarian model and a war crimes model. The former would base the laws of war in individual human rights, the latter in the criminal tribunals like the one at Nuremberg after World War II.

In 1862 and 1863, Lincoln was up to something very different. His personal passage from law-of-war skeptic to law-of-war reviser in the midst of the Civil War offered him a distinctive vantage point. His code sought to organize the laws of war not around individual human rights or war crimes trials, but around reciprocity and coordination between armies. Lincoln's code set limits on his army's conduct, to be sure. But it also aimed to win a war. The function of Lincoln's laws of war was thus to identify and protect opportunities for cooperative behavior even in the clash of armed conflict.
...

Interesting. How did Sherman's March fit into this code? The point about Lincoln's rules being distributed to the Confederacy shows that codes of conduct in warfare must be mutually agreed upon by both sides. What if one side refuses?

Quote:
After you cracked wise about socialist studies? Seriously, if you're gonna dish it out, then don't cry about it when it comes back to you.

Who's crying? I thought the socialist studies crack was clever, a shame you didn't find it so.

Quote:
The Civil War was fought over a variety of issues, but the primary issue was slavery. Lincoln was not a tyrant as unreconstituted confederates such as yourself think. A tyrant would have called for serious revenge on the South. Lincoln called for reconciliation. A reasonable approach would not presume that he was a tyrant but would ask if he was and let the evidence speak to that, but that's not what you've done. You've latched on to one historian who's ideology you agree with and allowed him to dictate to you what you should think about the subject. Stalinism and wikipedia has nothing to do with any of this.

My style isn't to ask vague socratic questions and hope the readers shed their programming and somehow sees the truth of it. Just like your style isn't to discuss original ideas but instead to link the sources that ummm "inform" you.

Quote:
Somehow slave owners in other countries didn't take up arms against their government when they outlawed slavery. Somehow slave owners in our country thought that treating people as property was so important that they were willing to go to war to preserve the practice. Apparently you are unable to mentally distinguish between right and wrong in this case. And when it comes to arguing strawmen, it doesn't get any worse than your two contrasting points of view - which concern WWII not the Civil War - and couldn't be more disconnected from this topic. Talk about weak logic.

To be clear, your stance is that Lincoln did pursue and attempt a similar approach to England and Venezuela but despite his best efforts was unsuccessful?

I want to be clear about this, so I can apply my "weak logic" to it.

Quote:
Did you bother to read the Douglass oration that I linked with? No, you didn't, because it doesn't deify Lincoln. As I wrote in my introduction to it - warts and all. It might surprise you, but it's possible to see Lincoln's faults without reaching the same extreme conclusions that you have. Lincoln had a rebellion to suppress. He ordered the slaughter of civilians? Who says that? Did he forcibly remove the Cherokee like Andrew Jackson? Clearly you're spinning hard. It's also clear you're particularly interested in using Lincoln to smear Obama. Tsk, tsk.

3 facts.

1) Lincoln micromanaged the war.
2) Sherman's March
3) I'm spinning hard.

Are you sure we're discussing the same war?

Quote:
You may not appreciate this, but I think others will.

Lincoln's Laws of War: How he built the code that Bush attempted to destroy. (Feb. 11, 2009)

Quote:
...
The code reduced the international laws of war into a simple pamphlet for wide distribution to the amateur soldiers of the Union army. It prohibited torture, poisons, wanton destruction, and cruelty. It protected prisoners and forbade assassinations. It announced a sharp distinction between soldiers and noncombatants. And it forbade attacks motivated by revenge and the infliction of suffering for its own sake. Most significantly, the code sought to protect channels of communication between warring armies. And it elevated the truce flag to a level of sacred honor.

In the spring of 1863, Lincoln's code was given not just to the armies of the Union but to the armies of the Confederacy. The code set out the rules the Union would follow—and that the Union would expect the South to follow, too. For the next two years, prisoner-exchange negotiations relied on the code to set the rules for identifying those who were entitled to prisoner-of-war status. Trials of Southern guerilla fighters and other violators of the laws of war leaned on the code's rules for support. The Union war effort became far more aggressive than it had been under McClellan's rules. As the Union's fierce Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman put it, Lincoln brought the "hard hand of war" to the population of the South. But this more aggressive posture was not at odds with Lincoln's new code. It was the code's fulfillment.
...
Yet if soldiers still today carry around a little bit of Old Abe Lincoln in their pockets, the appeal of his approach to the laws of war has waned in recent decades. Today, the two leading paradigms for the laws of war are a humanitarian model and a war crimes model. The former would base the laws of war in individual human rights, the latter in the criminal tribunals like the one at Nuremberg after World War II.

In 1862 and 1863, Lincoln was up to something very different. His personal passage from law-of-war skeptic to law-of-war reviser in the midst of the Civil War offered him a distinctive vantage point. His code sought to organize the laws of war not around individual human rights or war crimes trials, but around reciprocity and coordination between armies. Lincoln's code set limits on his army's conduct, to be sure. But it also aimed to win a war. The function of Lincoln's laws of war was thus to identify and protect opportunities for cooperative behavior even in the clash of armed conflict.
...

That has to be the most ridiculous thing you've said,(IN this thread). Lincoln oversaw the murder of thousands upon thousands of civilian women and children. That's a fact. And for the record, im not an unconstituted confederate, and I don't appreciate the inference.

Try sticking with the subject instead of making up in pejoratives what you lack in reason.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
After you cracked wise about socialist studies? Seriously, if you're gonna dish it out, then don't cry about it when it comes back to you.

Who's crying? I thought the socialist studies crack was clever, a shame you didn't find it so.

You were crying.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
The Civil War was fought over a variety of issues, but the primary issue was slavery. Lincoln was not a tyrant as unreconstituted confederates such as yourself think. A tyrant would have called for serious revenge on the South. Lincoln called for reconciliation. A reasonable approach would not presume that he was a tyrant but would ask if he was and let the evidence speak to that, but that's not what you've done. You've latched on to one historian who's ideology you agree with and allowed him to dictate to you what you should think about the subject. Stalinism and wikipedia has nothing to do with any of this.

My style isn't to ask vague socratic questions and hope the readers shed their programming and somehow sees the truth of it. Just like your style isn't to discuss original ideas but instead to link the sources that ummm "inform" you.

Aside from having nothing to do with the content of my response, in your response here you accuse me of doing exactly what you've been doing in as much as you've been channeling DiLorenzo's attack on Lincoln. Original ideas? You have none. Furthermore, you haven't the integrity to present viewpoints that don't agree with yours to any extent. For example, the snippets you quoted from DiLorenzo's attack on Lincoln refer to Masugi. Rather than provide a link to Masugi's argument and thereby allow others to compare and make up their minds for themselves, you simply push forward with DiLorenzo's attack, and when confronted you fall back to relying on taunts of socialism and stalinism and the like. That's weak and cowardly. Are you afraid that the sources that inform you won't hold up to scrutiny? It sure looks that way.

Here is Ken Masugi's review of DiLorenzo's book, originally published in the National Review in 2002: The Unreal Lincoln. National Review is low on my list of recommended journals, but that's besides the point.

And here is a review that is down right brutal: Presidential Studies Quarterly, March 1, 2004, Pinsker, Matthew

Quote:
...
Despite its provocative insights and obvious rhetorical skill, however, The Real Lincoln is seriously compromised by careless errors of fact, misuse of sources, and faulty documentation. Although individually these flaws may seem trivial and inconsequential, taken together they constitute a near-fatal threat to DiLorenzo's credibility as a historian. A few examples indicate the scope of the problem: ...
...
Unfortunately, these lapses are more than matched by a clumsy mishandling of sources that violates the presumed trust between author and reader. DiLorenzo claims, for example, that in the four years "between 1860 and 1864, population in the thirteen largest Northern cities rose by 70 percent" (p. 225). On the face of it, this statistic is absurd and defies common sense, and sure enough, the source DiLorenzo cites says that the growth occurred "in fifteen years."
...
As it stands, The Real Lincoln is a travesty of historical method and documentation. Exasperating, maddening, and deeply disappointing, ...

The page at that link contains other reviews, some praising the book, others denouncing it as hackery.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Somehow slave owners in other countries didn't take up arms against their government when they outlawed slavery. Somehow slave owners in our country thought that treating people as property was so important that they were willing to go to war to preserve the practice. Apparently you are unable to mentally distinguish between right and wrong in this case. And when it comes to arguing strawmen, it doesn't get any worse than your two contrasting points of view - which concern WWII not the Civil War - and couldn't be more disconnected from this topic. Talk about weak logic.

To be clear, your stance is that Lincoln did pursue and attempt a similar approach to England and Venezuela but despite his best efforts was unsuccessful?

I want to be clear about this, so I can apply my "weak logic" to it.

To be clear you're trying to put words in my mouth.

My stance is that the South revolted, not because Lincoln campaigned to end slavery in the South, but because he campaigned to prevent it from spreading to the West. My stance is that the South revolted barely a month after Lincoln took office. My stance is that the South didn't give Lincoln a chance to negotiate any end to slavery. My stance is that the South brought about it's own destruction by taking up arms against the Union. My stance is that the South put the perpetuation of slavery ahead of every other concern. My stance is that the states rights argument was a cover story to fool the rubes during and after the war.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Did you bother to read the Douglass oration that I linked with? No, you didn't, because it doesn't deify Lincoln. As I wrote in my introduction to it - warts and all. It might surprise you, but it's possible to see Lincoln's faults without reaching the same extreme conclusions that you have. Lincoln had a rebellion to suppress. He ordered the slaughter of civilians? Who says that? Did he forcibly remove the Cherokee like Andrew Jackson? Clearly you're spinning hard. It's also clear you're particularly interested in using Lincoln to smear Obama. Tsk, tsk.

3 facts.

1) Lincoln micromanaged the war.
2) Sherman's March
3) I'm spinning hard.

Are you sure we're discussing the same war?

You don't need to spin. You simply need to point to an instance where he ordered the slaughter of civilians. If you can't find one, then admit it.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
You may not appreciate this, but I think others will.

Lincoln's Laws of War: How he built the code that Bush attempted to destroy. (Feb. 11, 2009)

Quote:
...
The code reduced the international laws of war into a simple pamphlet for wide distribution to the amateur soldiers of the Union army. It prohibited torture, poisons, wanton destruction, and cruelty. It protected prisoners and forbade assassinations. It announced a sharp distinction between soldiers and noncombatants. And it forbade attacks motivated by revenge and the infliction of suffering for its own sake. Most significantly, the code sought to protect channels of communication between warring armies. And it elevated the truce flag to a level of sacred honor.

In the spring of 1863, Lincoln's code was given not just to the armies of the Union but to the armies of the Confederacy. The code set out the rules the Union would follow—and that the Union would expect the South to follow, too. For the next two years, prisoner-exchange negotiations relied on the code to set the rules for identifying those who were entitled to prisoner-of-war status. Trials of Southern guerilla fighters and other violators of the laws of war leaned on the code's rules for support. The Union war effort became far more aggressive than it had been under McClellan's rules. As the Union's fierce Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman put it, Lincoln brought the "hard hand of war" to the population of the South. But this more aggressive posture was not at odds with Lincoln's new code. It was the code's fulfillment.
...
Yet if soldiers still today carry around a little bit of Old Abe Lincoln in their pockets, the appeal of his approach to the laws of war has waned in recent decades. Today, the two leading paradigms for the laws of war are a humanitarian model and a war crimes model. The former would base the laws of war in individual human rights, the latter in the criminal tribunals like the one at Nuremberg after World War II.

In 1862 and 1863, Lincoln was up to something very different. His personal passage from law-of-war skeptic to law-of-war reviser in the midst of the Civil War offered him a distinctive vantage point. His code sought to organize the laws of war not around individual human rights or war crimes trials, but around reciprocity and coordination between armies. Lincoln's code set limits on his army's conduct, to be sure. But it also aimed to win a war. The function of Lincoln's laws of war was thus to identify and protect opportunities for cooperative behavior even in the clash of armed conflict.
...

That has to be the most ridiculous thing you've said,(IN this thread). Lincoln oversaw the murder of thousands upon thousands of civilian women and children. That's a fact. And for the record, im not an unconstituted confederate, and I don't appreciate the inference.

You think it was ridiculous of me to suggest that you wouldn't appreciate that article? It appears that I was correct in that regard. Jefferson Davis oversaw the same thousands of murders. You can no more hold Lincoln to account than you can Jefferson Davis and considering which side began the hostilities and their reasons for going to war, I think you ought to focus your disgust on Davis et al. The extent to which you've directed your disgust towards Lincoln to the exclusion of any other actor in the tragedy, makes you appear like a neo-confederate with an axe to grind rather than a pursuer of truth.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Try sticking with the subject instead of making up in pejoratives what you lack in reason.

Are you trying to make me laugh?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
You were crying.

I don't believe I was actually.

Quote:
Aside from having nothing to do with the content of my response, in your response here you accuse me of doing exactly what you've been doing in as much as you've been channeling DiLorenzo's attack on Lincoln. Original ideas? You have none. Furthermore, you haven't the integrity to present viewpoints that don't agree with yours to any extent. For example, the snippets you quoted from DiLorenzo's attack on Lincoln refer to Masugi. Rather than provide a link to Masugi's argument and thereby allow others to compare and make up their minds for themselves, you simply push forward with DiLorenzo's attack, and when confronted you fall back to relying on taunts of socialism and stalinism and the like. That's weak and cowardly. Are you afraid that the sources that inform you won't hold up to scrutiny? It sure looks that way.

You hold the majority opinion. I can ask a 5th grader and get a similar response. e.g. "Lincoln didnt believe in slavery."

The socialist studies quip was an attempt at humor. The stalinist reference is apt, as your position is that the ends justified the means, which, in case you don't know is known as stalinism.

Quote:
Here is Ken Masugi's review of DiLorenzo's book, originally published in the National Review in 2002: The Unreal Lincoln. National Review is low on my list of recommended journals, but that's besides the point.

And here is a review that is down right brutal: Presidential Studies Quarterly, March 1, 2004, Pinsker, Matthew

Quote:
...
Despite its provocative insights and obvious rhetorical skill, however, The Real Lincoln is seriously compromised by careless errors of fact, misuse of sources, and faulty documentation. Although individually these flaws may seem trivial and inconsequential, taken together they constitute a near-fatal threat to DiLorenzo's credibility as a historian. A few examples indicate the scope of the problem: ...
...
Unfortunately, these lapses are more than matched by a clumsy mishandling of sources that violates the presumed trust between author and reader. DiLorenzo claims, for example, that in the four years "between 1860 and 1864, population in the thirteen largest Northern cities rose by 70 percent" (p. 225). On the face of it, this statistic is absurd and defies common sense, and sure enough, the source DiLorenzo cites says that the growth occurred "in fifteen years."
...
As it stands, The Real Lincoln is a travesty of historical method and documentation. Exasperating, maddening, and deeply disappointing, ...

Lol, the second source you quoted actually agrees with all that DiLorenzo premises, it just jabs at him for technical errors. Perhaps you should review your sources more thoroughly. From the same review...

Quote:
The Real Lincoln ought to have been a book to confound Lincoln's apologists and to help rebuild the American historical consciousness. Ironically, it is essentially correct in every charge it makes against Lincoln, making it all the more frustrating to the sympathetic reader.

Your "brutal" review quoted has no quarrel with the premise, nor the charges laid.

DiLorenzo responds to Masugi Here

Quote:
To be clear you're trying to put words in my mouth.

My stance is that the South revolted, not because Lincoln campaigned to end slavery in the South, but because he campaigned to prevent it from spreading to the West. My stance is that the South revolted barely a month after Lincoln took office. My stance is that the South didn't give Lincoln a chance to negotiate any end to slavery. My stance is that the South brought about it's own destruction by taking up arms against the Union. My stance is that the South put the perpetuation of slavery ahead of every other concern. My stance is that the states rights argument was a cover story to fool the rubes during and after the war.

So what you're saying is that bloodshed was unavoidable and Lincoln efforted a non-martial solution thoroughly before prosecuting a war that killed 625,000 people(by todays population the equivalent of 6 million) ?

I'm just trying to be sure of your position.

Quote:
You don't need to spin. You simply need to point to an instance where he ordered the slaughter of civilians. If you can't find one, then admit it.

McClellan was fired for complaining about targeting civilians. Sherman raped and pillaged and completely burned several cities to the ground, cities that were unoccupied by confederate soldiers. You should know that already if you're lauding your grand knowledge of history.

Quote:
You think it was ridiculous of me to suggest that you wouldn't appreciate that article? It appears that I was correct in that regard. Jefferson Davis oversaw the same thousands of murders. You can no more hold Lincoln to account than you can Jefferson Davis and considering which side began the hostilities and their reasons for going to war, I think you ought to focus your disgust on Davis et al. The extent to which you've directed your disgust towards Lincoln to the exclusion of any other actor in the tragedy, makes you appear like a neo-confederate with an axe to grind rather than a pursuer of truth.

I think it's ridiculous that you could read that article and post it as if it had any relation to reality and at the same time claim some mastery of the topic were discussing.

Quote:
Are you trying to make me laugh?

No, I'm telling you that your inferences of racism because I don't believe in the deified Lincoln that you do is repugnant, and says more about you and your argument than it does me.