DiLorenzo's reading appears to be at odds with basic logic and historical facts. By his interpretation and logic, LIncoln merely used the cover of anti-slavery to wage a federalist take over of states, preventing them from seceding, as is their right (according to his logic). No, states AREN'T countries. Nor were they conceived that way as DiLorenzo contends. That is his theory and it is a bad theory, not supported by historical evidence. The "states rights" rhetoric was post-hoc apology for slavery under the rubric of economic "self-determination" built on the back of an enslaved population. If DiLorenzo is to be believed, Lincoln was actually an inveterate racist, who "freed the slaves" to create a distraction from his tyrannical impulses. This would make no sense at all, under any strategy or logic. That would be like George Wallace eliminating poll taxes, and greasing the wheels of black voter registration in order to get black votes. If he were to do so, he would lose his white votes. What Lincoln did was massively complex, contentious, and nuanced, and he paid for it with his life. That cannot be argued. That is historical fact. HIs murderer was a committed racist and supporter of the "Southern cause". What cause was that? States rights? Sure, states "rights" to own human flesh so they could make money not only off the backs for former African but their owned children as well, as if they were cattle. That fact is being glossed over by DiLorenzo's revisionist attempt to redeem white nobility. I don't buy it, and history doesn't support it.
There are many great words in this piece, but the Lincoln idolatry is another example of deception that has been perpetrated on the American people for far too long. Please consider the immense truth brought forth by Thomas DiLorenzo in his many books and articles, found on Lew Rockwell’s website.
Thomas DiLorenzo Books:
Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe,
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War,
The Problem with Lincoln: The False Virtue of Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln’s Repudiation of the Declaration of Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo--
Jacquelyn told me to come and read this page... I like it, probably because it sounds a lot like what I say! lol Seriously, good job.
Okay one little bone I will pick... Abe Lincoln, though he believed in Freedom for all people, and wasn't into slavery, he did say he would go with the flow, as it were, because what he was doing was trying to preserve the UNION. That was the bottom line for him. I'm not judging him because he may have been right, for the time and for the moment. And I think he was a good person, but... Just sayin.
I hope that's not a bone that will stick in your craw, because I like your page. Cheers.
So reasoned. Thank You.
DiLorenzo's reading appears to be at odds with basic logic and historical facts. By his interpretation and logic, LIncoln merely used the cover of anti-slavery to wage a federalist take over of states, preventing them from seceding, as is their right (according to his logic). No, states AREN'T countries. Nor were they conceived that way as DiLorenzo contends. That is his theory and it is a bad theory, not supported by historical evidence. The "states rights" rhetoric was post-hoc apology for slavery under the rubric of economic "self-determination" built on the back of an enslaved population. If DiLorenzo is to be believed, Lincoln was actually an inveterate racist, who "freed the slaves" to create a distraction from his tyrannical impulses. This would make no sense at all, under any strategy or logic. That would be like George Wallace eliminating poll taxes, and greasing the wheels of black voter registration in order to get black votes. If he were to do so, he would lose his white votes. What Lincoln did was massively complex, contentious, and nuanced, and he paid for it with his life. That cannot be argued. That is historical fact. HIs murderer was a committed racist and supporter of the "Southern cause". What cause was that? States rights? Sure, states "rights" to own human flesh so they could make money not only off the backs for former African but their owned children as well, as if they were cattle. That fact is being glossed over by DiLorenzo's revisionist attempt to redeem white nobility. I don't buy it, and history doesn't support it.
There are many great words in this piece, but the Lincoln idolatry is another example of deception that has been perpetrated on the American people for far too long. Please consider the immense truth brought forth by Thomas DiLorenzo in his many books and articles, found on Lew Rockwell’s website.
Thomas DiLorenzo Books:
Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe,
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War,
The Problem with Lincoln: The False Virtue of Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln’s Repudiation of the Declaration of Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo--
“In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson composed a “train of abuses” by the British crown that he said justified the colonists’ secession from the British empire. Lincoln was as guilty as King George III of every single one of these abuses.” https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/07/thomas-dilorenzo/lincolns-repudiation-of-the-declaration-of-independence/
Jacquelyn told me to come and read this page... I like it, probably because it sounds a lot like what I say! lol Seriously, good job.
Okay one little bone I will pick... Abe Lincoln, though he believed in Freedom for all people, and wasn't into slavery, he did say he would go with the flow, as it were, because what he was doing was trying to preserve the UNION. That was the bottom line for him. I'm not judging him because he may have been right, for the time and for the moment. And I think he was a good person, but... Just sayin.
I hope that's not a bone that will stick in your craw, because I like your page. Cheers.