[W:135] Great book to study The Problem with Lincoln

[Robertinfremont]

Thomas J Di Lorenzo produced a master piece called the Problem with Lincoln. Early on he introduces the Corwin Amendment.

Abe gave many speeches lauding white supremacy. The result of Lincoln was to erase a voluntary union with a coerced union.

• The Corwin Amendment was a proposed amendment to the Constitution passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification in 1861.
• Had it been ratified, the Corwin Amendment would have prohibited the federal government from abolishing enslavement in the states where it existed at the time.
• The amendment was conceived by outgoing President James Buchanan as a way to prevent war.

Abe was not a defender of the Constitution

Thomas explains this. Thomas is a famed professor author.

Tom DiLorenzo Explains the Problem With Abe Lincoln | Mises Institute

Tom DiLorenzo is a Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute who has written several books critical of Lincoln. His latest is "The Problem With Lincoln." Bob asks

mises.org

 

[Closer]

Lincoln was a railroad lawyer and pretty much an unreconstructed Whig re his advocacy of the 'American System' and policies that favored big subsidies that favored railroads and canals and the like that would largely benefit the Midwest and his own state in particular. The Federal land grants to railroads in Michigan and the Illinois Central were wildly lucrative; for instance in the IC's case the original founders and investors only paid in about one sixth of the face value of their shares and made huge profits afterwards as well. He wanted huge tarriffs to pay for it, and the southern Congressmen and Senators opposed that and all the associated 'Homestead Acts' that went with that, since almost none of it would benefit the South one red cent. It was strictly a massive welfare program for northern manufacturers, bankers, and railroads.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Lincoln was a railroad lawyer and pretty much an unreconstructed Whig re his advocacy of the 'American System' and policies that favored big subsidies that favored railroads and canals and the like that would largely benefit the Midwest and his own state in particular. The Federal land grants to railroads in Michigan and the Illinois Central were wildly lucrative; for instance in the IC's case the original founders and investors only paid in about one sixth of the face value of their shares and made huge profits afterwards as well. He wanted huge tarriffs to pay for it, and the southern Congressmen and Senators opposed that and all the associated 'Homestead Acts' that went with that, since almost none of it would benefit the South one red cent. It was strictly a massive welfare program for northern manufacturers, bankers, and railroads.

My aim is to get a genuine true discussion going about Abe Lincoln.

I will check my books on things you mentioned.

 

[Tigerace117]

Thomas J Di Lorenzo produced a master piece called the Problem with Lincoln. Early on he introduces the Corwin Amendment.

Abe gave many speeches lauding white supremacy. The result of Lincoln was to erase a voluntary union with a coerced union.

• The Corwin Amendment was a proposed amendment to the Constitution passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification in 1861.
• Had it been ratified, the Corwin Amendment would have prohibited the federal government from abolishing enslavement in the states where it existed at the time.
• The amendment was conceived by outgoing President James Buchanan as a way to prevent war.

Abe was not a defender of the Constitution

Thomas explains this. Thomas is a famed professor author.

Tom DiLorenzo Explains the Problem With Abe Lincoln | Mises Institute

Tom DiLorenzo is a Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute who has written several books critical of Lincoln. His latest is "The Problem With Lincoln." Bob asks

mises.org

DiLorenzo is a hack, but I’m not surprised you, as one of the local Confederate fanboys, are still wailing about Lincoln.

 

[Robertinfremont]

DiLorenzo is a hack, but I’m not surprised you, as one of the local Confederate fanboys, are still wailing about Lincoln.

Confederate fan boy? How about you showing some honesty. Were it the North that seceded and carved out it's constitution plus the citizens voted for the change, I would defend that notion of freedom.

 

[justabubba]

for a more even overview of these events and more, i recommend reading A Lincoln by Ronald C White

 

[Closer]

Confederate fan boy? How about you showing some honesty. Were it the North that seceded and carved out it's constitution plus the citizens voted for the change, I would defend that notion of freedom.

Ignore the troll; it's just some obnoxious teenager trying to be a bully or something.

One of the things about Lincoln biographies is that they were all controlled by is his ancestors up until 1947 or so, when the Todd family finally stopped demanding editorial control as a requirement for access to his private papers. As a result books like The Lincoln Nobody Knows, North Of Slavery, and Forced To Glory were published, and knowledge of his vile Nazi style 'Contraband Camps' became widely known, set up for the purpose of keeping all those 'freed' black people from fleeing north and offending all those fine anti-racist white folk up there modern propagandists insist were only fighting to free them.

You might try looking at DiLorenzo's footnotes and verifying as many of those s you can. As many as a million black people may may have died in the camps by some estimates, and as for Lincoln's future plans for all those 'free' black people we have the examples of the government plantations set up by Lincoln's military governors in the southern states conquered in the west along the Big Muddy: Blacks were to be paid a wage of 3 dollars a month, but not allowed to leave without written permission from the plantation managers .... McPherson's Ordeal By Fire has more on that.

One of the ironies is that Lincoln would have been far more lenient on the southern states after the war than the radicals were if he hadn't been assassinated.

 

[Tigerace117]

Confederate fan boy? How about you showing some honesty. Were it the North that seceded and carved out it's constitution plus the citizens voted for the change, I would defend that notion of freedom.

You are a Confederate fanboy, as your posts in numerous threads have shown quite clearly.

Not a single country recognized the Confederacy, and claiming the people explicitly fighting to defend slavery were “fighting for freedom” is amusing.

 

[Tigerace117]

Ignore the troll; it's just some obnoxious teenager trying to be a bully or something.

One of the things about Lincoln biographies is that they were all controlled by is his ancestors up until 1947 or so, when the Todd family finally stopped demanding editorial control as a requirement for access to his private papers. As a result books like The Lincoln Nobody Knows, North Of Slavery, and Forced To Glory were published, and knowledge of his vile Nazi style 'Contraband Camps' became widely known, set up for the purpose of keeping all those 'freed' black people from fleeing north and offending all those fine anti-racist white folk up there modern propagandists insist were only fighting to free them.

You might try looking at DiLorenzo's footnotes and verifying as many of those s you can. As many as a million black people may may have died in the camps by some estimates, and as for Lincoln's future plans for all those 'free' black people we have the examples of the government plantations set up by Lincoln's military governors in the southern states conquered in the west along the Big Muddy: Blacks were to be paid a wage of 3 dollars a month, but not allowed to leave without written permission from the plantation managers .... McPherson's Ordeal By Fire has more on that.

One of the ironies is that Lincoln would have been far more lenient on the southern states after the war than the radicals were if he hadn't been assassinated.

Hate to break it to you bud but pointing out your interpretation is utter crap(for example, claiming that Lincoln set up “Nazi esque camps” is downright idiotic, especially your claim that “some suggest” up to a million people died there; there is no evidence to suggest anywhere near that many people died, especially since there were only about four million African Americans in the country total) is not “trolling”. Nor is it “being a bully”, no matter how much your feelings are hurt by reality.

And no, there is no evidence to suggest that African Americans would have been forcibly kept in “contraband camps” after the war either.

But hey, no straw is too thin for Confederate fanboys to grasp at.

 

[Robertinfremont]

You are a Confederate fanboy, as your posts in numerous threads have shown quite clearly.

Not a single country recognized the Confederacy, and claiming the people explicitly fighting to defend slavery were “fighting for freedom” is amusing.

"Lincoln was a typical example of the humanitarian with the guillotine: a familiar modern 'reform liberal’ type whose heart bleeds for and yearns to 'uplift' remote mankind, while he lies to and treats abominably actual people whom he knew." ---Murray Rothbard1


Ken Masugi is partially right about Tom DiLorenzo’s book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (2002). It is "awful"—"awful"ly good, even great. Tom DiLorenzo has completely and irrevocably destroyed the myth, the legend, the fable, the fairy tale--the tall tale of Abraham Lincoln, American’s first military dictator and its first Presidente after the violent regime change of 1861.

I predict that this book will sell more copies than there were troops at Gettysburg on both sides, and will cause a major transformation in American thought about Lincoln, which will ultimately redound to the benefit of the Republic for which Lincoln did not stand, the Lincoln myth being the cornerstone of the United State of Greater America—the world minus China--that replaced that Republic.

I predict that the attacks on DiLorenzo and his book will continue and increase in number and virulence. There is a strange entity out there which I call the Church of Lincoln, the church of one who had no church. Gone with the wind and the internet are the days when courageous revisionist historians and dissenters like DiLorenzo could be ignored to death. With two of the leading political websites in the world heralding his tome, Mises.org and LewRockwell.com, and his book selling like statist intellectuals’ souls, the Church of Lincoln could not ignore DiLorenzo. When Ilana Mercer fired her starter’s pistol, the congregation raced to attack the book before it was even published.

 

[vegas giants]

This will be a thread on what heroes the confederates were.

 

[iguanaman]

DiLorenzo is a hack, but I’m not surprised you, as one of the local Confederate fanboys, are still wailing about Lincoln.

No State or States may succeed from the union. That is treason.

 

[Robertinfremont]

I see modern parallels in 1861 vs from 2017-2021. Trump was beat up unfairly. I beat up Lincoln only fairly.

Nevertheless, I am not without sympathy for the Church and its predicament. They are facing an enemy they haven’t faced before and like typical generals, they are fighting the last war. They continue to spar with the racial views of Douglas and Calhoun while being skewered by a potent new foe, the modern libertarian DiLorenzo. Imagine how General Meade would have felt if Lee had been able to attack the union army from the front, the rear, and both flanks simultaneously, and you will get a taste of the present consternation of the Church of Lincoln. For what DiLorenzo has done is attack the myth of Lincoln from 360 degrees all at once, with guns blazing. And these are guns they haven't seen before: a real Jeffersonian attacking the spurious Jeffersonianism of Lincoln; a sincere supporter of natural rights attacking the disingenuous lip service Lincoln paid to natural rights; Lincoln being attacked "from the left" on slavery by an opponent who is "to the right" of Jefferson Davis on secession! "Why, by God, I actually pity those poor [expletives deleted] we're going up against. By God, I do!" (General George S. Patton, Jr., June 5, 1944).

DiLorenzo and His Critics on the Lincoln Myth | Mises Institute

Can a few courageous writers like Tom DiLorenzo and his colleagues, using logic, evidence, and moral suasion, negate what their opponents thought they had won

mises.org

 

[Robertinfremont]

No State or States may succeed from the union. That is treason.

You might imagine there is a law on that were it true.

 

[iguanaman]

Confederate fan boy? How about you showing some honesty. Were it the North that seceded and carved out it's constitution plus the citizens voted for the change, I would defend that notion of freedom.

No State or States may succeed from the union. That is treason.

 

[Robertinfremont]

This will be a thread on what heroes the confederates were.

hahahahahaha funny . Democrats are helpless kittens.

 

[iguanaman]

You might imagine there is a law on that were it true.

That is the law and we fought a war enforcing it. The South will NEVER rise again.

 

[vegas giants]

As I said. A pointless thread

 

[Robertinfremont]

No State or States may succeed from the union. That is treason.

While I can read the 2nd amendment, that Democrats constantly deny says what it says, I have not read the law you are speaking of. Cite your claims in law please.

 

[Robertinfremont]

That is the law and we fought a war enforcing it. The South will NEVER rise again.

Because of Democrats eh? I notice you still refuse to cite the law you allege is true.

 

[Robertinfremont]

As I said. A pointless thread

HAHAHAHA poor helpless kitten.

 

[vegas giants]

HAHAHAHA poor helpless kitten.

What?

 

[Robertinfremont]

This will be a thread on what heroes the confederates were.

It wasn't going to be. Thanks for what you want it to be about.

 

[iguanaman]

Because of Democrats eh? I notice you still refuse to cite the law you allege is true.

We are not called the UNITED States for nothing. You must imagine we are called The Loosely Affiliated States.. UNITED means our bonds are unbreakable.

 

[Tigerace117]

"Lincoln was a typical example of the humanitarian with the guillotine: a familiar modern 'reform liberal’ type whose heart bleeds for and yearns to 'uplift' remote mankind, while he lies to and treats abominably actual people whom he knew." ---Murray Rothbard1


Ken Masugi is partially right about Tom DiLorenzo’s book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (2002). It is "awful"—"awful"ly good, even great. Tom DiLorenzo has completely and irrevocably destroyed the myth, the legend, the fable, the fairy tale--the tall tale of Abraham Lincoln, American’s first military dictator and its first Presidente after the violent regime change of 1861.

I predict that this book will sell more copies than there were troops at Gettysburg on both sides, and will cause a major transformation in American thought about Lincoln, which will ultimately redound to the benefit of the Republic for which Lincoln did not stand, the Lincoln myth being the cornerstone of the United State of Greater America—the world minus China--that replaced that Republic.

I predict that the attacks on DiLorenzo and his book will continue and increase in number and virulence. There is a strange entity out there which I call the Church of Lincoln, the church of one who had no church. Gone with the wind and the internet are the days when courageous revisionist historians and dissenters like DiLorenzo could be ignored to death. With two of the leading political websites in the world heralding his tome, Mises.org and LewRockwell.com, and his book selling like statist intellectuals’ souls, the Church of Lincoln could not ignore DiLorenzo. When Ilana Mercer fired her starter’s pistol, the congregation raced to attack the book before it was even published.

Claiming Lincoln was a ”military dictator” is moronic.....and neither one of those websites are “leading political websites”. Likewise, claiming that the election of 1860 was a “violent regime change” is moronic. But then again, that entire little rant was also fully moronic, so that’s hardly a surprise.