Christian Forums

Apparently, not everyone is a fan of our 16th President.

Being an American by birth, and a Southerner by the grace of God, I find some sympathy for this article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo179.html

DiLorenzo and dishonest certainly do go together.  See my comments on other threads.

I'm sorry but that article is one big contraction and is very short on facts.

He also ignores one very important fact:  The south fired the first shots.  They made war on Lincoln.

In Christ,
KP

As I've mentioned before, DiLorenzo has created a career for himself spreading half-truths and downright lies about Lincoln.  In one infamous instance he even attributed a racist quote that Lincoln was criticizing to Lincoln himself, ignoring the context.  The man's not to be taken seriously.

Check out the book Land of Lincoln to get an enlightening and hilarious summary of the ways the Lincoln is perceived and remembered in our society--from the academic to the downright bizarre. There are at least a few pages devoted to DeLorenzo and others in his camp. Generally the anti-Lincoln crowd does have some pretty strong scholarly arguments to be made (although they are infested with their own types of silliness) and the pro-Lincoln people are mostly made up of inspirational speakers and Lincoln junk collectors.

I always laugh when I read things like this.  You'd swear that the north fired the first shots of the war, but they always leave that little factoid out because it sure wasn't the North that started it.

A state does NOT have the right to secede, period.  They never have, it is no where in the constitution.  And bottom line, what Lincoln did was for the good of the country as a whole.  If you think America splitting in two would have been what was best for the people of both the North and South, you're kidding yourself. 

And anyone who honestly thinks Lincoln didn't read, understand and believe in the Constitution is a fool, plain and simple.

The North won.  The South will not rise again.

Lol I totally forgot I posted this.  (I think that's the theme of the history forum, correct me if I'm wrong).

So the author isn't to be trusted it seems.  Ah well.

Heard that book on Lincoln surpass all others in the USA except Jesus.. To the tone of about 15,000 give or take...

So was the not always honest???

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu Nov 12, 2009 - 14:52:15
Apparently, not everyone is a fan of our 16th President.

Being an American by birth, and a Southerner by the grace of God, I find some sympathy for this article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo179.html

im not a fan of any president usa has had.

Quote from: ex cathedra on Wed Dec 23, 2009 - 20:08:24

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu Nov 12, 2009 - 14:52:15
Apparently, not everyone is a fan of our 16th President.

Being an American by birth, and a Southerner by the grace of God, I find some sympathy for this article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo179.html

im not a fan of any president usa has had.

There are some things some of them have said or done that I liked but for the most part they are no different then any other leaders, kings or princes.............

The following is from Wikipedia

QuoteThomas James DiLorenzo (born 1954) is an American economics professor at Loyola University Maryland[1]. He is an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics. He is a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South,[2] and the Abbeville Institute.[3] He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Virginia Tech[1].

Ignatius Loyola was the founder of the Jesuit institution.  Thomas Dilorenzo is a professor at Loyola University and likely tied to that orginization, if not a Jesuit himself.  Thus the hatred of Abraham Lincoln.  The assassins of Lincoln were likely directed by the Church of Rome, since almost all the conspirators tried for the crime, were Catholic.  The last one captured was found in Italy as a member of the Popes private army.

The Church of Romes support for the South in the war is not as hidden a matter, as their role in the assassination of Lincoln is.  Though Romes reasons for supporting the South, were far from the same as most Southerners that fought the war, who believed they were fighting for states rights.  Romes intention was only to inflict as much damage as possible upon this once Protestant nation.  Today she has succeeded in overthrowing our Protestant government by other means.

In May of 1861, Lincoln wrote to Captain Gustavus Fox, the commander of the relief expedition to Sumter, "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.

Quote from: Vidette on Fri Mar 12, 2010 - 16:30:36
In May of 1861...
...
...Let us not worship Caesar but Christ alone.

Wow!  I learned stuff 2day!

FIFTY YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME
Charles Chiniquy

Chapter 61
Every time I met President Lincoln I wondered how such elevation of thought and such childish simplicity could be found in the same man. After my interviews with him many times, I said to myself: "How can this rail-splitter have so easily raised himself to the highest range of human thought and philosophy?"

The secret of this was, that Lincoln had spent a great part of his life at the school of Christ, and that he meditated his sublime teachings to an extent unsuspected by the world. I found in him the most perfect type of Christianity I ever met. Professedly, he was neither a strict Presbyterian, nor a Baptist, nor a Methodist; but he was the embodiment of all which is more perfect and Christian in them. His religion was the very essence of what God wants in man. It was from Christ Himself he had learned to love God and his neighbour, as it was from Christ he had learned the dignity and the value of man. "Ye are all brethren, the children of God," was his great motto.

It was from the Gospel that he had learned his principles of equality, fraternity, and liberty, as it was from the Gospel he had learned that sublime, childish simplicity which, alone, and for ever, won the admiration and affection of all those who approached him. I could cite many facts to illustrate this, but I will give only one, not to be too long: it was taken from the Memoirs of Mr. Bateman, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Illinois.

"Mr. Lincoln paused: for long minutes, his features surcharged with emotion. Then he rose and walked up and down the reception room, in the effort to retain or regain his self-possession. Stopping at last, he said, with a trembling voice and his cheeks wet with tears: I know there is a God, and that He hates injustice and slavery. I see the storm coming and I know that His hand is in it. If He has a place and work for me, and I think He has, I believe I am ready! I am nothing, but truth is everything! I know I am right, because I know that liberty is right: for Christ teaches it, and Christ is God. I have told them that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and Christ and reason say the same thing, and they will find it so. Douglas does not care whether slavery is voted up or down. But God cares, and humanity cares, and I care. And with God's help, I will not fail. I may not see the end, but it will come, and I shall be vindicated; and those men will see that they have not read their Bible right! Does it not appear strange that men can ignore the moral aspect of this contest? A revelation could not make it plainer to me that slavery, or the Government, must be destroyed. The future would be something awful, as I look at it, but for this ROCK on which I stand (alluding to the Gospel book he still held in his hand). It seems as if God had borne with slavery until the very teachers of religion had come to defend it from the Bible, and to claim for it a Divine character and sanction. And now the cup of iniquity is full, and the vials of wrath will be poured out.'"

Mr. Bateman adds: "After this, the conversation was continued for a long time. Everything he said was of a very deep, tender, and religious tone, and all was tinged with a touching melancholy. He repeatedly referred to his conviction 'that the day of wrath was at hand,' and that he was to be an actor in the struggle which would end in the overthrow of slavery, though he might not live to see the end. After further reference to a belief in Divine Providence, and the fact of God, in history, the conversation turned upon prayer. He freely stated his belief in the duty, privilege, and efficacy of prayer; and he intimated, in no unmistakable terms, that he had sought, in that way, the divine guidance and favour."

The effect of this conversation upon the mind of Mr. Bateman, a Christian gentleman whom Mr. Lincoln profoundly respected, was to convince him that Mr. Lincoln had, in his quiet way, found a path to the Christian standpoint, that he had found God, and rested on the eternal truth of God. As the two men were about to separate, Mr. Bateman remarked: "I had not supposed that you were accustomed to think so much upon this class of subjects; certainly your friends generally are ignorant of the sentiments you have expressed to me."

He quickly replied: "I know they are, but I think more on these subjects than upon all others, and I have done so for years; and I am willing you should know it."*

Somebody is lying.

The Ambiguous Religion of President Abraham Lincoln

by Mark A. Noll

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), sixteenth president of the United States, has become a mythic figure in America's civil religion. Born into relative poverty on the midwestern frontier, he rose from humble origins through self-discipline, honesty, common sense, a considerable measure of ambition, and a ready wit to shepherd the nation through the black days of the Civil War. After his death, Americans found it irresistible to see his achievement in a religious light. It was soon noted, for example, that Lincoln -- the "Savior" of the Union -- was shot on Good Friday (April 14, 1865), that his efforts to liberate the bondslave and bind up the wounds of war were cut short by "martyrdom," and that his very name -- Abraham -- spoke of the father of his people. Although Lincoln himself originally saw the Civil War as a political struggle to preserve the Union, he came to regard it as a crusade for truth and right. He spoke of the United States as "the last, best hope of the earth," of its citizens as "the almost chosen people," and of the War as a test to see if a nation "conceived in liberty . . . can long endure."

Considerable uncertainty arises, however, when Lincoln's own religion is examined. On the one hand, it is obvious that Christianity exerted a profound influence on his life. His father was a member of Regular Baptist churches in Kentucky and Indiana. Lincoln himself read the Bible throughout his life, quoted from it extensively, and frequently made use of biblical images (as in the "House Divided" speech of 1858). It was said of him, perhaps with some exaggeration, that he knew by heart much of the Psalms, the book of Isaiah, and the entire New Testament. His life also exhibited many Christian virtues. He was scrupulously honest in repaying debts from ill-fated business ventures of the 1830s. He offered tender sympathy to the widows and orphans created by the Civil War. He pardoned numerous sleeping sentries and other soldiers condemned to death for relatively minor lapses. He kept his head concerning the morality of the contending sides in the War, refusing to picture the North as entirely virtuous or the South as absolutely evil. And during his years as president he did regularly attend the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington.

On the other hand, Lincoln never joined a church nor ever made a clear profession of standard Christian beliefs. While he read the Bible in the White House, he was not in the habit of saying grace before meals. Lincoln's friend Jesse Fell noted that the president "seldom communicated to anyone his views" on religion, and he went on to suggest that those views were not orthodox: "on the innate depravity of man, the character and office of the great head of the Church, the Atonement, the infallibility of the written revelation, the performance of miracles, the nature and design of . . . future rewards and punishments . . . and many other subjects, he held opinions utterly at variance with what are usually taught in the church." It is probable that Lincoln was turned against organized Christianity by his experiences as a young man in New Salem, Illinois, where excessive emotion and bitter sectarian quarrels marked yearly camp meetings and the ministry of traveling preachers. Yet although Lincoln was not a church member, he did ponder the eternal significance of his own circumstances, a personal life marked by tragedy (the early death of two sons) and difficulty (the occasional mental instability of his wife). And he took to heart the carnage of war over which he presided.

Whether it was from these experiences or from other sources, Lincoln's speeches and conversation revealed a spiritual perception far above the ordinary. It is one of the great ironies of the history of Christianity in America that the most profoundly religious analysis of the nation's deepest trauma came not from a clergyman or a theologian but from a politician who was self-taught in the ways of both God and humanity. The source of Lincoln's Christian perception will probably always remain a mystery, but the unusual depth of that perception none can doubt. Nowhere was that depth more visible than in his Second Inaugural Address of March 1865: "Both [North and South] read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes." Even more to the point was his reply when a minister from the North told the president he "hoped the Lord is on our side." Responded Lincoln, "I am not at all concerned about that. . . . But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

I will not join into a copy and paste war with you. I will not play "my source is better than your source.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Mar 12, 2010 - 21:34:49
Somebody is lying.

A politician lie?  Never.

  The guy is not around to question, how convenient

Quote from: Vidette on Sat Mar 13, 2010 - 21:28:44
I will not join into a copy and paste war with you. I will not play “my source is better than your source.”  It matters not to me who has the largest library. I am not interested in a debate just to find out who is better at it. It is without purpose, for it neither proves nor disproves that which is true or false.

Do not worry that I will pull Lincoln, whom you claim is the embodiment of all that is good, down from your throne. You alone can do it.

That is all. I stand by my previous statement.

I don't think Amo was necessarily disagreeing with you, fwiw.

QuoteI will not join into a copy and paste war with you. I will not play "my source is better than your source.

Please forgive the misreading the intention of your post.

No doubt but that Lincoln had a great mind. He also had the ability to speak upon a high spiritual level and did so on many occasions. So often, in fact, that today it is a losing battle to suggest that Lincoln was anything less than a saint. There are alternative views which were passed down, but it turns into a battle of who can most ably shoot down the other's messenger, and in this case Lincoln has the most messengers. Since the North won, that is to be expected, perhaps. Evenso, the ability to speak upon a spiritual level implies only that one has the ability to do so.  I will not argue that he had the ability; I just don't believe it was real.

It is true that Lincoln fought for that which he believed, which was preservation of the Union. The problem was that not all of the states wanted to stay in his union. Hence, rule by the consent of the governed no longer exists. At this point the slavery issue is used to justify Lincoln's actions, but it is still true that he forced those who desired no part in the Union to be bound to it against their will. In a manner of speaking, he freed many but enslaved all. He did fight for that which he believed (forced union) and that fight was against "his

vidette, your grasp on history is tenuous.  In his inaugural address, Lincol argued that the Constitution was a more perfect union than the earlier Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, that it was a binding contract, and called any secession "legally void".   He also stated he had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property. His speech closed with a plea for restoration of the bonds of union.

What you also neglected to mention is that the south captured every fort in its territory (most by force, though some capitulated) except two...one of those was fort sumpter.  That is why Lincoln was so keen to hold on to it.  His predecessor tried to resupply it, but was repulsed.  Lincoln had no desire for armed conflict...his only desire was to preserve the union.  The southern states had no desire to preserve the union and every desire for armed conflict.

I know many revisionist historians claim the war was about "states rights" but this contradicts Davis' and Stephens' (CSA Vice President) own words.  Both claimed that it was about slavery in speeches they gave before hostilities commenced.

Bond

I will agree that we have different views (as also do historians.)

It is my view that Lincoln had choices. He could have let the South go peaceably, but he chose, as you said, to "bind

The south attacked Fort Sumpter, not the other way around.

Do you really think that United States and the Confederate States could have ever peacefully co-existed?  It would be illogical to assume a free country could co-exist with a slave country, their interests economically, politically and morally would have been diametrically opposed.  As far back as the Federalist papers founding fathers were arguing that independent states existing near each other could never peacefully co-exist when their interests were not the same, which is why the union was so important, it would prevent the states from fragmenting and fighting each other.  In 1850 leaders from the southern states gathered to discuss invading Cuba in order to spread slavery there, and they also seriously discussed secession until the Compromise of 1850 was passed; they were already discussing war as a means to protect and spread slavery far prior to the Civil War.

The fact is states DO NOT have the right to secede, the right is legal fiction.  Unless you can quote the article of the constitution that gives states that right?  Lincoln made it clear he did not want to destroy the institution of slavery where it already existed, he wanted to stop it from spreading.  The south was terrified of the number of free states outnumbering the number of slave states, which drove their desire for secession and with it their desire for war.  They could wrap themselves in the cause of state rights all they want, but it was always about slavery. 

Quote from: Huscarl on Sat Mar 20, 2010 - 14:59:08
The south attacked Fort Sumpter, not the other way around.

If you can't spell Sumter correctly, you might also want to rethink your view on it.
However, the question is not "who fired the first shot?

Quote from: Vidette on Sat Mar 20, 2010 - 22:13:26

Quote from: Huscarl on Sat Mar 20, 2010 - 14:59:08
The south attacked Fort Sumpter, not the other way around.

If you can't spell Sumter correctly, you might also want to rethink your view on it.
However, the question is not "who fired the first shot?

And Christianity was illegal for hundreds of years during the Roman Empire and they didn't try to secede, God watched over the faithful and ensured that they would be victorious in the end without the need for a civil war.  And by the beginning of the 4th century there were more than enough Christians in the empire to fight the establishment, because by then more than half of the empire was Christian, but they still chose not to fight.  I'm not saying all war is wrong, but that if Christianity was outlawed I would do what many believers have done over the centuries in such situations and practice it regardless and pray I could bear the consequences with faith if caught.

The south didn't need to pursue a suicidal path by starting a war against an enemy they never had a chance of beating but they chose to

The southern states did not start the war but merely did what was and is the inherent right of any state, and that's withdraw from the union.  The federal government is a creation of the states, not the other way around and a creature is not greater than the creator.

You spelled Sumter wrong again.  I point this out because it is obvious that you are not even listening to me.

So the death of hundreds of thousands of people is justified as long as you can win, and the principles for which they fought are a moot point as long as you have the most bullets.

Furthermore, the people made the Constitution and not the other way around. 

Quote from: Vidette on Sun Mar 21, 2010 - 15:27:09
You spelled Sumter wrong again.  I point this out because it is obvious that you are not even listening to me.

So the death of hundreds of thousands of people is justified as long as you can win, and the principles for which they fought are a moot point as long as you have the most bullets.

Furthermore, the people made the Constitution and not the other way around. 

Spelling corrections, really?

I am listening, which is why I was willing to actually respond to you.  If you were listening maybe you would do the same, and actually cite evidence to support your claims rather than repeating yourself.

And yes, the south attacked fort SUMTER, they started the war, and they lost. 

Justification has nothing to do with it, if you actually read what I said I made it clear that morality had nothing to do with my argument, it is a matter of legality.  Legality and morality rarely have anything in common.

And the people made the constitution, but that does not mean they are above the constitution, no one is.  If anything is above the constitution it becomes meaningless, which is why all other arguments are meaningless when discussing constitutional rights.  They did not have the right to secede and if there was ever room for debate the civil war decided it.  Like it or not to the victor go the spoils, and it was decided once and for all that secession is a right states simply do not have.  What point is there in arguing about how things should have happened?  They didn't happen that way, accept it and move on.

And you ignore your own hypocrisy by claiming that the South had the right to be free which justifies their secession, yet then wouldn't their slaves have had the right to secede from them?  Considering the reason the south wanted to leave the union was to protect their right to own slaves, I doubt it.  And if they weren't able to achieve this because they did not have the means than it was up to the north to do it.  If you are going to make a moral argument than you have to answer this inherent contradiction.  It had nothing to do with freedom, it had to do with protecting their vested economic interests; the fact that so many southerners actually bought and still buy into the idea that it was about freedom only speaks to the brilliance of many southern leaders who were unwilling to face their own contradictions and constructed elaborate fantasies to explain it away.

If spelling errors invalidate opinions, then this whole country got off to a bad start. Several of our founders were somewhat creative spellers.

btw, a question--how did the whole states' rights bit fit in with the Dred Scott affair?

Quote from: Huscarl on Sun Mar 21, 2010 - 18:19:00
Legality and morality rarely have anything in common.

That's only true if you're a lawyer, or think like one. 

Quote:
"And you ignore your own hypocrisy by claiming that the South had the right to be free which justifies their secession, yet then wouldn't their slaves have had the right to secede from them?  Considering the reason the south wanted to leave the union was to protect their right to own slaves, I doubt it.  And if they weren't able to achieve this because they did not have the means than it was up to the north to do it.  If you are going to make a moral argument than you have to answer this inherent contradiction. "

You assume incorrectly.  The slaves had the right to fight for their freedom, just as the South had the right to leave. I think it is you who contradicts. You said that rights only exist when they are legal. Slavery was legal, so do you think the slaves had the right to do that which was illegal (fight for their freedom)?

Quote from: Vidette on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 10:20:24

You assume incorrectly.  The slaves had the right to fight for their freedom, just as the South had the right to leave. I think it is you who contradicts. You said that rights only exist when they are legal. Slavery was legal, so do you think the slaves had the right to do that which was illegal (fight for their freedom)?

So you agree the north was justified in helping the slaves fight for their freedom because the slaves were unable to do it themselves?  If that's what you're saying than you're saying the south was in the wrong.  If the slaves had the right to fight for their freedom than what the South did was wrong, you can't have it both ways.

And  I never said the slaves had any legal rights, if you actually read what i said instead of ignoring everything.  I was dissecting your own argument, which contradicts itself, as moral arguments usually do and why they are irrelevant to any legal discussion.  The north won the war, which gave the slaves rights, prior to that they had none.  Pretty simple

Although one could easily make the argument that the slaves already had constitutional rights that the south was trampling over.  Slaves had a constitutional right to bear arms but the south deprived them of that right.  Another example of the South's disregard for freedom when it wasn't in their interest.  And this has nothing to do with my earlier statements regarding foreign affairs because this was a domestic issue, the same rules do not apply.