Newly Acquired Book: The Real Lincoln

Status
Not open for further replies.

ReformedWretch

Puritan Board Doctor
I FINALLY picked this up tonight. It was $15 for the paper back edition. The cashier told me there have been several people asking for this book as of late, I have no idea why because it's several years old. I've always wanted it though and just never got around to buying it.

I've only read the forward so far, but an very intrigued!

:book2:
 
I FINALLY picked this up tonight. It was $15 for the paper back edition. The cashier told me there have been several people asking for this book as of late, I have no idea why because it's several years old. I've always wanted it though and just never got around to buying it.

I've only read the forward so far, but an very intrigued!

:book2:

Is this the book by Thomas DiLorenzo brother? If it is I assure you it's hard to put down when you start.
 
Abraham Lincoln was not a spiritual pillar. Abraham Lincoln was not a Puritan. Abraham Lincoln was not <fill in the blank>. Abraham Lincoln was President during a most turbulent time in our nations history. He provided solid leadership. I will venerate no man, but neither will I seek to bring a man low. I suppose if I wanted to peer into the life of Stonewall Jackson or Robert E. Lee I could find an ample display of skeletons.

I'm sorry for my angry tone, but I have read too much of the tripe that seeks to lower our former President, not to correct history but to bring the man low. I am bothered by it (obviously).
 
Lincoln = Cyrus The Great. Pagan, godless and unbelieving, but God raised him up for a specific purpose.

You guys think that a non united America could have defeated Hitler? The full impact of having America united didn't bear fruit until the 20th century, whereby the proliferation of technology and economic activity resulted in a glorious age of bounty for all mankind.

And no, I am not saying that Lincoln invented the internet :D
 
Lincoln = Cyrus The Great. Pagan, godless and unbelieving, but God raised him up for a specific purpose.

You guys think that a non united America could have defeated Hitler? The full impact of having America united didn't bear fruit until the 20th century, whereby the proliferation of technology and economic activity resulted in a glorious age of bounty for all mankind.

And no, I am not saying that Lincoln invented the internet :D

Hey we have lost a large number of our original freedoms :chained: but hey we have the internet. :( Yah Lincoln
 
We were just discussing a book, gentlemen. Forgive for any offense I may have caused. I don't apologize, though, for my disdain of Lincoln's antics, or the revisionist history which has ensued due to the providential loss of the South. And I certainly mean this with the utmost respect and sincerity toward all.

Josh, I am not bothered by those who disdain Lincoln. Each man is entitled to believe what he wishes regarding our 16th President. But often times Lincoln is used as a whipping post in order to drive a separate agenda. I freely concede that he (Lincoln) was not a moral lighthouse. No President is. No person is. But while I am not accusing you of this, some use Lincoln as a convenient stepping stone to elevate the plight of the South during that time.

I suppose it comes down to what we expect out of our government leaders. We are flawed people that are lead by flawed people. Israel found that out when Saul became king. The sad part is that, even in the PB, politics divides brothers. Look at the some of the posts about George Bush and Iraq war. Talk about vitriol and misplaced passion. Would it be that we fight against sin in our own lives to the degree that we argue politically.

While I still believe that Abraham Lincoln was a good President, I am not ready to cannonize him. He was a man. I hope he was a saved man. When we get to glory we will find that out.
 
Whoa....

1) I didn't put this in the books forum because it's not a "Christian" book.

2) I've never lived int he South.

3) I am shocked at what was taught to me that was a total LIE

4) I believe in small government and if Lincoln took a big chunk of that away from us as a Nation then I lose a lot of respect for him

5) I do not believe a large part of the civil war was about slavery, I think that's one of the lies that we've been fed. Why did no other Nation on Earth have to go to war to end slavery?
 
Forgive me, Adam. Move it as you see fit.

Nah, not what I'm saying Josh, it's fine here and may be the best decision. I just wanted to say why I hadn't originally placed it else where. I worried it could rile some people up so I placed it in a private forum just in case, even though that wasn't my goal.
 
Nah, not what I'm saying Josh, it's fine here and may be the best decision. I just wanted to say why I hadn't originally placed it else where. I worried it could rile some people up so I placed it in a private forum just in case, even though that wasn't my goal.

Rile? Like who....moi? :lol:

I'm over it now. I said my piece and stick to it. I realize that it is one of those subject that is going to polarize so I'll avoid it in the future.
 
I didn't have anyone in mind Bill, I just thought it might happen. I am not out to smear a long dead president but I am out to lear what's true and un-do some of the garbage I was blindly taught as a child.
 
It's difficult to assess the intrinsic character of any historical president because the historical record is tainted by excessive remarks from his supporters and his opponents. Any war time president is particularly difficult to assess, but for Lincoln, who has the dubious distinction of leading an army against his own countrymen, it is exceedingly difficult.

I agree with those that espouse the notion Lincoln has long earned a respect and goodwill that has been misplaced. "The Real Lincoln" is probably more accurate than the smattering of tidbits that most of us were fed in school, yet it is my opinion that DiLorenzo probably has swung too far the opposite direction in his attempt to portray "The Real Lincoln."

The book is worth the read simply to open the eyes to another view point, but I think if one truly wished to understand the real Lincoln, one ought not rely soley upon the findings of this book.
 
Again, I am not seeking to completely "understand" Lincoln. I am seeking to discover what things I've been taught were lies. I did the same thing in regard to doctrine here. I don't think anyone here would have told me to read all of Dave Hunts books in order to understand theology correctly, right?
 
Whoa....

1) I didn't put this in the books forum because it's not a "Christian" book.

2) I've never lived int he South.

3) I am shocked at what was taught to me that was a total LIE

4) I believe in small government and if Lincoln took a big chunk of that away from us as a Nation then I lose a lot of respect for him

5) I do not believe a large part of the civil war was about slavery, I think that's one of the lies that we've been fed. Why did no other Nation on Earth have to go to war to end slavery?



Whoa! You need to move down here with us brother!:lol: Another book you've got to read is "when in the course of human events". It is one you absolutely can not out down. Dilorenzo references in his books.
 
You guys think that a non united America could have defeated Hitler? The full impact of having America united didn't bear fruit until the 20th century, whereby the proliferation of technology and economic activity resulted in a glorious age of bounty for all mankind.

Who knows? But if there was a non-united America Hitler may have never been in power.
 
Even without Lincoln, we're we not united enough to stand against the likes of Hitler? We were "United" for the right reasons, we just were allowed to keep State Soverignty.
 
written by houseparent

Again, I am not seeking to completely "understand" Lincoln. I am seeking to discover what things I've been taught were lies.

Adam, I applaud you for that. But books like this (regardless of which side of the debate they are on) often contain subjective opinion, not empirical fact. It is relatively easy to cast doubt on previous convictions. It is quite another thing to uncover the truth. Let me give you a "for instance." Critics of Lincoln often cite his willingness to allow slave owners in Union states to continue owning slaves as proof that he really wasn't against slavery. But they ignore the fact that Lincoln was Commander and Chief of a nation at war. The Emancipation Proclamation was intended to create unrest and insurrection in the south. In essence it was a tactical wartime move. The fact that he allowed northern slave owners to continue owning slaves was a matter of expediency. Lincoln was against slavery, but he could not afford to have northern slave owners at his neck while the Union was at war. Lincoln displayed his true thoughts about slavery with his proposing the 13th Ammendment to the Constitution which outlawed slavery. Sadly, critics of Lincoln's stance on slavery focus on his supposed compromise and ignore the larger reality that the nation was a war and Lincoln was trying to win it...quickly.

Now, a true student of history will understand that the Civil War did not begin because of one issue. There were a myriad of issues that culminated in the war. State rights, slavery, northern arrogance, southern jealously...all played a part to larger or lesser degrees. In fact seven southern states had seceded by the time Lincoln had taken his oath of office. The point? The Civil War was at Lincoln's doorstep from the time he took office. Unfortunately the nation never saw what Lincoln could have done in peacetime. He was assasinated too soon after Lee surrendered. It is a fair question to ask if Lincoln would have proposed the 13th Ammendment to the Consitution if the nation had not gone to war. I suppose we'll never know.

Adam, I may pick up the book you are reading in order to see for myself whether the author uses verifiable fact or opinion. I'll see if my library has a copy. The more I think about it this whole topic is good. Should we just accept one point of view or seek to find out the truth?
 
Who knows? But if there was a non-united America Hitler may have never been in power.

I agree. While hypothetical counter-factual historicals are hard to make, I think this is warranted. Whatever else you want to think of Lincoln, after Lincoln we ceased to be a Republic and we became and Empire. If we hadn't of gotten involved in WWI, it is doubtful that Germany would either 1) lost the war, OR 2) granted losing, would they have been so humiliated by France as to warrant the desire for revenge? I think not.

I guess we can make the argument, without Lincoln, no Hitler!

I am just kidding, sort of.
 
Presreformed;

Your right, "Jeff Davis in petticoats" was largely a Northern myth (cannot trust those Yankees I guess)....


Here's the links that prove it:

http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Month=May&Date=27

http://www.suvcw.org/mollus/warpapers/MIv1p179.htm

http://www.civilwarpoetry.org/union/songs/petticoats-exp.html


It was only a woman's shawl and possibly an overcoat. My mistake and apologies.


Trevor

Trevor, you should know better. Don't you know that unless you are wearing the full ensemble it doesn't count? A shawl and petticoat was not what the fashionable woman was wearing in 1865. Jeffey didn't learn to accessorize!

:lol:
 
State rights, slavery, northern arrogance, southern jealously...all played a part to larger or lesser degrees.


Bill, what exactly was this 'southern jealousy' that played a part in the war?
 
Bill, what exactly was this 'southern jealousy' that played a part in the war?

The south was jealous of northern industry and political influence in Washington. The population center of the United States was in the northeast. Most industry was in the north. The busiest ports were in the north. In short, most power in the United States in the 1860's was in the north. The north was guilty of arrogance, but the south was also guilty of jealousy. If anyone believes all of the souths reasons for leaving the Union were pure they are deceived. There were a myriad of reasons that lead to the War. Arrogance and jealousy did not play minor parts.
 
I'm sorry bill but could you be a tab bit more specific? I mean seriously, why would the south just be jealous of the north because they had industry? this sounds eerily similar to "they hates us because we are freedom loving peoples'?

Are you speaking of the Morrill tariff where the south was robbed by the north? is that jealousy for you? I would actually call that robbery. Maybe we should say the war was caused by northern theft?
 
I'm sorry bill but could you be a tab bit more specific? I mean seriously, why would the south just be jealous of the north because they had industry? this sounds eerily similar to "they hates us because we are freedom loving peoples'?

Are you speaking of the Morrill tariff where the south was robbed by the north? is that jealousy for you? I would actually call that robbery. Maybe we should say the war was caused by northern theft?

Don, some quotes from "The Civil War and Reconstruction" by J.G. Randall and David Herbert Donald.

Turning to the economic problem, one finds that the ante-bellum Southerner was encouraged to consider the science of Adam Smith and Ricardo as indeed the "dismal science." Reading the pages of De Bows Review, or following the rhetorical portrayal of economic injustice by a certain boiling Kettell (T. P. Kettell, Southern Wealth and Northern Profits), the patriotic Southern citizen must often have felt his fighting blood rising. Kettell marshaled an imposing array of data and statistics to show that the South was the great wealth-producing section, while the North, like an economic leech, sucked up the wealth of the South upon which it depended for raw materials and indeed for its very life. American commerce, according to this view, whether incoming or outgoing, drew fundamentally from the South. It was the South which supplied the bulk of exported products; and it was the South which bought the bulk of imported goods. Northern manufactures rested upon the production of Southern materials. Yet the North enjoyed the lions share of the profits.

continuing...

Elaborating this thesis, Kettell argued that this economic inequality resulted from the concentration of manufacturing, shipping, banking, and international trade in the North. For the marketing of export crops New York was the center. The Southern planter, sending his cotton to England, would draw upon the English importer a bill of exchange to be paid in sixty or ninety days. Not awaiting the arrival of his goods abroad, he would use this draft to obtain ready cash. The market for foreign bills of exchange, however, was in New York; it was there that ready money could be had for them. When the demand for such bills was low, this negotiable paper would be depressed; if the demand were high, some speculator rather than the Southern producer might reap the profit. The Southerner was as fully convinced of the prevalence of vicious speculation in cotton paper as the farmer today is convinced of the trickiness of methods that attend transactions in grain futures. The fact that the Northern broker assumed a risk in giving the planter ready money in exchange for a future claim was overlooked.

Don, there was a major disconnect between the South and the North. The North needed the South's raw materials. The South needed its interests protected. That was a problem given that most of the economic decisions that effected the South took place in the North. The result? The South became jealous by what it perceived to be an inequitable and untenable realationship with the North. This is a reality that played into the emotions and perceptions of the South toward the North. Notice that I am not exonerating the North from its culpability in perpetuating this inequality. All those who have power, and profit from it, seek to maintain the status quo.

The interesting thing about the quotes I provided is that they were written from a Southern perspective. They were not written to defend the North. Since I do not consider myself to be a Civil War ideologue, it makes no difference to me whether my supporting evidence comes from Northern or Southern sources. The fact is (In my humble opinion) that Southern jealousy was real, just as Northern arrogance was real. Neither one was the sole cause of the war, but they both played a not-so-insignificant role.
 
The North needed the South's raw materials. The South needed its interests protected. That was a problem given that most of the economic decisions that effected the South took place in the North. The result? The South became jealous by what it perceived to be an inequitable and untenable realationship with the North. This is a reality that played into the emotions and perceptions of the South toward the North. Notice that I am not exonerating the North from its culpability in perpetuating this inequality. All those who have power, and profit from it, seek to maintain the status quo.

That's fine, Bill. But I fail to see how the quotes show that the South was 'jealous' - it seems a better term would be anger/resentment because of the inequatible relationship with the North. I just don't think I'd characterize the South's reaction as 'jealousy'. Would you characterize the 13 colonies as 'jealous' towards Britain?
 
That's fine, Bill. But I fail to see how the quotes show that the South was 'jealous' - it seems a better term would be anger/resentment because of the inequatible relationship with the North. I just don't think I'd characterize the South's reaction as 'jealousy'. Would you characterize the 13 colonies as 'jealous' towards Britain?

Yes, I would. But does jealousy negate anger and resentment? No. It sometimes leads to it.
 
I'm not trying to turn this into a debate but a few comments/questions.

I never said nor implied that jealousy negates anger/resentment. I just don't see why either of their attitudes should be characterized primarily as jealousy and not righteous indignation for the theft that was occurring. When you characterize the South's attitude in that manner, it connotes that the South was wrong for being angered by the North - but that is akin to saying that it's wrong to be angered at a bully who steals your lunch money everyday to buy his own.

Two more questions:

You said that the South was jealous of "northern industry", yet your explanation only included political influence. Was the South jealous of Northern industry and how was this a cause of the war? or was it the politics that followed?

Do you think that the South's 'jealousy', as you call it, was justified (and that of the 13 colonies)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top