Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-13-2019, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Elsewhere
88,588 posts, read 84,818,250 times
Reputation: 115126

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf View Post
How so?

DiLorenzo's "history writing" wouldn't fly in a freshmen history class at most universities. It is complete rubbish.
But he has a 59-minute video on YouTube. That doesn't count for anything???? That's almost as good as PhD, isn't it?
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-14-2019, 07:23 AM
 
50 posts, read 24,717 times
Reputation: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post

...

And it doesn't change the fact that, as soon as (Lincoln) had the political capital to do so, he used that capital to free the slaves. Which is, of course, ultimately the reason behind most of the loathing of Lincoln.
During the War, there were four Union states that permitted slavery; from west to east, they were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2019, 08:01 AM
 
14,993 posts, read 23,899,456 times
Reputation: 26523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf View Post
How so?

DiLorenzo's "history writing" wouldn't fly in a freshmen history class at most universities. It is complete rubbish.
We also have to address the "agenda aspect" - he has essentially made a business out of trashing Lincoln. Who would buy his books, pay for his seminars, watch his videos (where he get's click revenue) if he has a mainstream view? No one. He needed to find a niche. He's cornered the market on his specific trade - an extremist view of Lincoln for the extreemist' in society: white supremacists and extreme right wing nationalists - and he's made a good supplemental income from that.

He's probably laughing himself all the way to the bank thinking that people actually are falling for it...or maybe he himself at this point even believes what he writes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2019, 02:23 PM
 
Location: North America
4,430 posts, read 2,709,280 times
Reputation: 19315
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedF0ster View Post
Since DiLorenzo was intelligent enough to earn a PhD in Economics from a major university, it stands to reason that he is intelligent enough to write books of history as well.
You're clearly oblivious to the fact that historical research is a discipline, not just a matter of being 'intelligent enough'. While it is quite possible for those not trained in the field to produce credible historical research, Thomas DiLorenzo's writing demonstrates that he is unable - or unwilling - to do so.

Thomas DiLorenzo is a neo-Confederate crank. He's a Lost Causer. He castigates Lincoln for crushing the secession of the South, but utters nary a peep against the Confederacy crushing the attempted secession from the Conderacy of eastern Tennessee. He prattles on about 'states rights' but has no qualms with the fact that the Confederacy gives states no rights vis-a-vis slavery because the Confederate Constitution explicitly forbids any state from ever exercising the right to prohibit slavery within its territory. DiLorenzo rails against the denial of the liberty to enslave, but not against the travesty of the denial of liberty that is slavery. He's a League of the South-er who has alternated between disingenuously insisting that merely speaking at their forums is not akin to his endorsing their views, and explicitly endorsing their views.

And you uncritically lap it all up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedF0ster View Post
During the War, there were four Union states that permitted slavery; from west to east, they were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware.
Actually, it was five states, not four. And?

Oh, wait -- this is another one of those stunning facts that you've discovered and think will blow everyone away. Except, I venture that pretty much everyone on this forum is perfectly aware of this. You forgot West Virginia, which was formed out of Virginia in 1863 as a Union state and which permitted slavery for over a year, eventually abolishing it in early 1865.

I wonder, what is your point? Let me guess -- that Lincoln somehow nefariously supported slavery and only used abolition as a mechanism to oppress the South? That's pure nonsense, of course, but since you embrace sources that quote-mine Lincoln with an eye to never revealing his long history of opposition to slavery, how would you even know? That's what you get for buying DiLorenzo's shtick. At any rate, if you had even a cursory familiarity with the legal status of slavery relating to the war, you'd know that Lincoln's power to abolish slavery in those states in rebellion was solely predicated on, not surprisingly, those states being in rebellion, and that he lacked the power to do so in those states not in rebellion. Thus, the fact that he did not move to abolish slavery where he could not do so speaks to nothing but Lincoln's rather circumspect stance toward the power he held - not exactly the power-mad tyrant depicted by DiLorenzo and those like him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2019, 03:11 PM
 
Location: The High Desert
16,091 posts, read 10,753,057 times
Reputation: 31499
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedF0ster View Post
During the War, there were four Union states that permitted slavery; from west to east, they were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware.
Slavery and the prosecution of the war in the border states was a complicated and convoluted issue. Early in the war, several home-grown Union officers in Missouri had black "body servants" that seemed to be held in some level of involuntary servitude but were not part of the army. That was eventually something of a problem for their superiors because the servants were consuming and using army rations and supplies. Their murky legal status was less of an issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2019, 07:10 AM
 
50 posts, read 24,717 times
Reputation: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
...
Lincoln's power to abolish slavery in those states in rebellion was solely predicated on, not surprisingly, those states being in rebellion, and that he lacked the power to do so in those states not in rebellion.
...

Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Secession is one of a State's powers. The Constitution does not prohibit the exercise of this power by a State, this power was not delegated to the United States, and so this power is reserved to every State.

Therefore, the CSA was a legitimate foreign country, not a group of states in rebellion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2019, 07:55 AM
 
14,400 posts, read 14,310,746 times
Reputation: 45732
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedF0ster View Post
Secession is one of a State's powers. The Constitution does not prohibit the exercise of this power by a State, this power was not delegated to the United States, and so this power is reserved to every State.

Therefore, the CSA was a legitimate foreign country, not a group of states in rebellion.
What a bunch of BS.

The Constitution has detailed provisions on how a state enters the union. It has no provisions that deal with how a state leaves the Union. The most logical inference is that it was not intended for states to leave the Union. A US Supreme Court case called Texas v. White 74 US 700 (1869) affirms this basic proposition.

Against all that we have your opinion.

Its not a very good one. Let's leave it at that.

BTW, have you posted here on any other historical topic than secession?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2019, 08:18 AM
 
50 posts, read 24,717 times
Reputation: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
...
The Constitution has detailed provisions on how a state enters the union. It has no provisions that deal with how a state leaves the Union. The most logical inference is that it was not intended for states to leave the Union. A US Supreme Court case called Texas v. White 74 US 700 (1869) affirms this basic proposition.
...
The Tenth Amendment is that provision. It doesn't directly mention leaving the Union, but secession is one of the powers referenced in the Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2019, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,129,546 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedF0ster View Post
The Tenth Amendment is that provision. It doesn't directly mention leaving the Union, but secession is one of the powers referenced in the Amendment.
That is the problem, it does not mention secession at all. That secession is therefore implied is just an argument, not an absolute. The arguments against secession are also implied arguments because there is no language in the Constitution which prohibits it. The failure to include a process for secession implies that there was no intent for such a process to exist, but it only implies.

No one is ever going to resolve the problem of secession's legality because all either side has is an implied argument, nothing definitive. That is why a war was required to settle matters.

Further, even if you were to conclude that secession wasn't prohibited, you cannot state with absolute authority that the process used by the states in rebellion, was the proper one to use. The ratification of the Constitution was a national process which by agreement, came into being once nine of the 13 states voted to ratify. It was understood that even if a state voted against it, if nine states voted for it, then all 13 states were now governed by the Constitution, no longer by the Articles of Confederation.

However, the process used by the rebellious states was simple, unilateral declaration. "Hi, we're not in the Union any longer, All our love, South Carolina." Why should any of the other states accept such a thing when they were not consulted and had no opportunity to vote on the idea?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2019, 04:36 PM
 
Location: North America
4,430 posts, read 2,709,280 times
Reputation: 19315
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedF0ster View Post
Secession is one of a State's powers. The Constitution does not prohibit the exercise of this power by a State, this power was not delegated to the United States, and so this power is reserved to every State.

Therefore, the CSA was a legitimate foreign country, not a group of states in rebellion.
You can keep stating this. It does not make it so.

I notice that you conveniently snipped out my note about the attempted secession eastern Tennessee, which was crushed by the Confederate Army. In the first place, for the federal Confederate government to involve itself in an intrastate squabble is a complete abrogation of the concept of states rights, that rallying cry of the apologists of slavery. In the second place, for the Confederacy to physically prevent secession by military occupation, arrests, and executions emphatically demonstrates that the Confederacy itself did not believe in the right of secession. Like you, DiLorenzo conveniently ignores this rather inconvenient historical event.

Frankly, I'm sure you haven't the foggiest idea of the East Tennessee Convention or any of the other details of the issue of eastern Tennessee attempting to separate itself from the Confederacy. Given that you've obviously just recently learning the stunning (to you) facts that Lincoln did not believe in the full equality of the races, and that there were Union slave states (I'm confident that both of these realities are old and uncontroversial news to most if not all the regulars here), it is not surprising that you're oblivious to the fact that your revered Confederacy care not one iota for the rights of its own states to secede from it.

Why on Earth should the Union respect the supposed right of states to secede from the Union when the Confederacy did not extend that supposed right to its own states?

As an aside, DiLorenzo dislikes the Constitution, considering it a big government travesty that replaced a more proper document, the Articles of Confederation. But the Articles declare the union of the states to be perpetual. Oh, let me guess... you've never heard of Perpetual Union, have you? No surprise. That's what happens when your source of information is a crank who never touches upon what he finds inconvenient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Further, even if you were to conclude that secession wasn't prohibited, you cannot state with absolute authority that the process used by the states in rebellion, was the proper one to use. The ratification of the Constitution was a national process which by agreement, came into being once nine of the 13 states voted to ratify. It was understood that even if a state voted against it, if nine states voted for it, then all 13 states were now governed by the Constitution, no longer by the Articles of Confederation.
Actually, that's not the case. Article VII makes clear that the ratification of the ninth state makes the Constitution binding upon only those ratifying states. That's why, for example, Rhode Island and North Carolina did not participate in the election for 1788/89 - they hadn't yet ratified and weren't yet a part of the United States. Indeed, it would be rather presumptuous in the extreme to presume that Rhode Island would be a state when it hadn't ratified the Constitution - it was so opposed to the very idea that it sent no delegates at all to the Constitutional Convention (it eventually joined only after the newly-comprised United States made it clear that it would treat Rhode Island like the foreign power that it was for over a year between the Constitution coming into effect in 1789 and Rhode Island joining the Union in 1790).

If he supports the Constitution, Ted Foster implicitly accepts that constitutions (such as the 'perpetual' Articles) may be abrogated. If he denies the Constitution in favor of the Articles, he implicitly accepts that the Union is perpetual. He's a classic example of someone who just throws claims out there, without thinking through the implications of what he (or, rather, those who are feeding him the claims he's eagerly supporting) is putting forth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top