Abraham Lincoln | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Interviewed by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN's "Q & A" television program, Dr. DiLorenzo discusses Lincoln, academia, and his two books: "The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked".

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Real
• Lincoln
• History
• DiLorenzo
• Mises
• Fascism
• Politics
• Freedom
• Austrian
• Economics
• South
• North
• Independence
• Federal

[bcartner]

Lincoln was not trying to preserve the Union. He had a vendetta against the South, and HE WAS A RACIST. He would have colonized all African Americans if he had lived. He destroyed everything our Revolutionary Patriots fought to create for a free people.

[pretorious700]

@uk6strings I'd put Clinton and both Bushes in there too

[maidenak]

Wow, I had no idea Tom DiLorenzo was such a horrible speaker. Does he have some kind of speech impediment? His writings are awesome, but his speaking is terrible!

[KayBeeEee1983]

@CODScumBags Look up the meaning of the word "explicit". You're confusing it with "implicit".

[CODScumBags]

@KayBeeEee1983 It was explicitly retained. Ever heard of the 10th amendment. We just sit silently as the FEDs run all over it.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@jimmys1978 ".To suddenly free all these people would have been disasterous for the South."

Well, it happened, and it wasn't disastrous. The idea that the southern economy NEEDED slavery is false. After emancipation, most of the slaves stayed right where they were. The plantation slaves became sharecroppers, the house slaves became butlers, maids, and cooks. The WAR destroyed the southern economy, not emancipation.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@vinnykster "The states came before the Union."

That's irrelevant and only true for 4 of the 11 seceding states. The other 7 were formed after the Constitution was ratified. 6 were formed BY the federal government.

Marriage is a good analogy because I'm pretty sure, in most states, both parties must give consent in order to divorce, or it at least needs to be authorized by an arbitrator. A husband can't just arbitrarily and immediately divorce his wife and claim their shared property as his own.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@vinnykster For the north, "preserving the union" meant preserving the tariffs, that's true. The tariffs wouldn't have been there if they weren't necessary. The tariff of 1857 had the lowest rate of the 19th century and one of the lowest in the world, at that time. And it severely hurt the northern economy.

The north was extremely racist, that's also true. They may have been even more racist than the south. The most racist character in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is a New England abolitionist.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@vinnykster The states aren't sovereign. They gave up their sovereignty, for all intents and purposes, when they ratified the constitution. That's why Rhode Island debated ratification for 2 years. They didn't participate in the first federal elections, first Supreme Court appointments, and the first legislation. Why would they be willing to miss those important events if they could just leave anytime in the future anyway? When forming a new government, sovereignty must be explicitly retained.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@vinnykster Read the southern declarations of causes for secession. They make it perfectly clear that secession was about slavery and little else. Tariffs are never mentioned. Not even once. Secession isn't a right. The constitution is a contract (they use the term "compact"). SC explains that IN DETAIL. A contract doesn't need to explicitly say that the contract can't be violated. SC says that the northern states violated the Constitution, and THAT'S what gives them the right to secede.

[vinnykster]

@jimmys1978 Preserving the Union is a total Myth. The states came before the Union. It's impossible for the Union to come before the sovereign states. That's like saying 2 people are married before they got married. Secession was and still IS a right. The Declaration of Indy was a declaration of secession. This war was not necessary at all and was about economics and tariffs. Slavery was incidental and a pawn. The north had just as much racism and slavery as the south. Just read T.D's book

[TheHylander1314]

@jimmys1978 WWI, as per the Zimmerman Telegram. But Wilson and the American Gov, was anything but neutral, so in many ways, the Germans were backed into a corner by the pseudo neutral American Gov.