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.
Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 12-23-2012 at 07:05 PM.
* 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.
Website: Stop Agenda 21 in Texas!
New Video - Agenda 21: How Will It Affect You?
Rand Paul 2016 - Facebook!
Rand Paul 2016 - Bumper Stickers!
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.
Last edited by Travlyr; 12-23-2012 at 08:24 PM.
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.