Abraham Lincoln's National Bank

[Travlyr]

That depends what DiLorenzo meant. Let's look at what he said. Did he say "held political office" or "in politics"? He said "in politics."

What did he say about this period of time Lincoln was in politics? He said he advocated the agenda of Clay. Should we not think that DiLorenzo means to include things Lincoln said and did in other capacities than simply legislation he voted for? Things like campaigning for Clay, for example? Since DiLorenzo said 28 years, and not 12 years, I tend to think that he did mean to include such things.

You boys can believe whatever you want to believe. I'm going to do my own research and I'm not going to believe anything Thomas J. DiLorenzo says anymore. He is a known liar.

[Travlyr]

As soon as Lincoln took office the old Whig coalition finally controlled the entire government. It immediately tripled the average tariff rate, began subsidizing the building of a transcontinental railroad in California even though a desperate war was being waged, and on February 25, 1862, the Legal Tender Act empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to issue paper money ("greenbacks") that were not immediately redeemable in gold or silver. The National Currency Acts of 1863 and 1864 created a system of nationally chartered banks that could issue bank notes supplied to them by the new Comptroller of the Currency, and a 10 percent tax was placed on state bank notes to drive them out of business and establish a federal monetary monopoly. The government's paper money flooded the banks so that by July 1864 greenback dollars were worth a mere 35 cents in gold.

Is that true? Did Lincoln advocate for fiat money before he became president? Is that what Lincoln was saying in the OP?

Ever since the days of Andrew Jackson American presidents had opposed a fiat money system. The Jacksonian opposition to central banking was ended, literally, at gunpoint. Lincoln's main role was to avoid doing what presidents had done for the previous three decades: veto central banking legislation. There was no chance of that since Lincoln, unlike Jackson and President John Tyler, was a career-long advocate of central banking and fiat money.

Is that true? Is Lincoln advocating for fiat money in the OP? Is that the way you read it?

As far as DiLorenzo's claim about the transcontinental railroad, the Republicans and Democrats both advocated for it in 1860. DiLorenzo would have you believe that Lincoln was alone in that endeavor. Baloney. Read the 1860 Republican Party Platform for yourself, and read the 1860 Democratic Party Platform for yourself as well. Everyone wanted internal improvements by the central government in 1860.

[heavenlyboy34]

As far as DiLorenzo's claim about the transcontinental railroad, the Republicans and Democrats both advocated for it in 1860. DiLorenzo would have you believe that Lincoln was alone in that endeavor. Baloney. Read the 1860 Republican Party Platform for yourself, and read the 1860 Democratic Party Platform for yourself as well. Everyone wanted internal improvements by the central government in 1860.

What makes you think that? The focus of his piece was Lincoln-why expand the scope so broadly when unnecessary? You find that technique used in biographies and encyclopedias as well.

[Travlyr]

What makes you think that? The focus of his piece was Lincoln-why expand the scope so broadly when unnecessary? You find that technique used in biographies and encyclopedias as well.

Have you read "The New Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo?

No, but I've read his essays.

Maybe you should try reading his book if you can.

[heavenlyboy34]

Maybe you should try reading his book if you can.

I intend to. I don't have extra money for books right now.
Why did you bother quoting this-

What makes you think that? The focus of his piece was Lincoln-why expand the scope so broadly when unnecessary? You find that technique used in biographies and encyclopedias as well.

without answering the question? Was there a point you were trying to make? It seems you're dodging my questions.

[Travlyr]

I intend to. I don't have extra money for books right now.
Why did you bother quoting this-
without answering the question? Was there a point you were trying to make? It seems you're dodging my questions.

Because if you haven't read the book, then you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not dodging your questions. I wish to debate informed individuals. Thanks to Benjamin Franklin, library books will let you read for free. Or you can find $9 and pay Thomas J. DiLorenzo for his propaganda. Until you read his book, you will not know what is in it.

[FrankRep]

Thomas J. DiLorenzo for his propaganda.

So your problem with DiLorenzo is that:

* Abraham Lincoln started his political carrier in 1832.

Wikipedia: Abraham Lincoln > Early career and militia service

In 1832, at age 23, Lincoln and a partner bought a small general store on credit in New Salem, Illinois. Although the economy was booming in the region, the business struggled and Lincoln eventually sold his share. That March he began his political career with his first campaign for the Illinois General Assembly.

* DiLorenzo called the Greenbacks a Fiat Currency

Wikipedia: United States Note (Greenback)

A United States Note, also known as a Legal Tender Note, is a type of paper money that was issued from 1862 to 1971 in the U.S. Having been current for over 100 years, they were issued for longer than any other form of U.S. paper money. They were known popularly as "greenbacks" in their heyday, a name inherited from the Demand Notes that they replaced in 1862. Often called Legal Tender Notes, they were called United States Notes by the First Legal Tender Act, which authorized them as a form of fiat currency.

Correct?

[Travlyr]

So your problem with DiLorenzo is that:

* Abraham Lincoln started his political carrier in 1832.

Wikipedia: Abraham Lincoln > Early career and militia service

In 1832, at age 23, Lincoln and a partner bought a small general store on credit in New Salem, Illinois. Although the economy was booming in the region, the business struggled and Lincoln eventually sold his share. That March he began his political career with his first campaign for the Illinois General Assembly.

* DiLorenzo called the Greenbacks a Fiat Currency

Wikipedia: United States Note (Greenback)

A United States Note, also known as a Legal Tender Note, is a type of paper money that was issued from 1862 to 1971 in the U.S. Having been current for over 100 years, they were issued for longer than any other form of U.S. paper money. They were known popularly as "greenbacks" in their heyday, a name inherited from the Demand Notes that they replaced in 1862. Often called Legal Tender Notes, they were called United States Notes by the First Legal Tender Act, which authorized them as a form of fiat currency.

Correct?

No, that is not correct at all. My challenge to you is: Can you read Lincoln's speech in the OP of this thread and understand it? I believe that is the speech that DiLorenzo claimed that Lincoln was extreme and even bizarre, "Lincoln's speech was quite extreme and even bizarre in some respects. He quite hysterically claimed, for instance, that under a gold and silver standard "All [will] suffer more or less, and very many will lose everything that renders life desirable." Can you quantify what DiLorenzo meant by that?

Lincoln claimed himself uneducated. Are you more uneducated than he was? Can you understand what Lincoln wrote? If so, then please share with the rest of us. I consider myself an educated man and I have a hard time understanding exactly what the uneducated Lincoln wrote.

My problem with DiLorenzo is that he lies about Lincoln in his biography of Lincoln. That is an unforgivable sin. If one is to write a biography about another, then at least... tell the truth. I mean if one wishes to denigrate another, then don't call it a biography in the 21st century. We have the truth machine at our fingertips. DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" is full of falsehoods, distortions of the truth, quotes out-of-context, and outright lies. William H. Herndon, Lincoln's 20+ year partner, wrote a biography of Lincoln. He said, paraphrasing, people like DiLorenzo are going to come along and distort the truth. Herndon felt a duty to write Lincoln's biography in order to counteract liars such as DiLorenzo with the facts. DiLorenzo is full of crap. If you believe what he writes, then believe it at your own peril.

[heavenlyboy34]

Because if you haven't read the book, then you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not dodging your questions. I wish to debate informed individuals. Thanks to Benjamin Franklin, library books will let you read for free. Or you can find $9 and pay Thomas J. DiLorenzo for his propaganda. Until you read his book, you will not know what is in it.

You think libraries are free? LOL They're on the public dole. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul...aries-20100706

And why are DiLorenzo's writings anymore propagandistic than yours? Just about everything you've written could have been penned by the same State-sponsored "historians" who write the government schools' "history" books.

[heavenlyboy34]

My problem with DiLorenzo is that he lies about Lincoln in his biography of Lincoln. That is an unforgivable sin.

Now you think Tom's books are biographies? Do you even know what that word means? I get the feeling that either you don't or you're deliberately misusing it. Tom's books are history, not biography.