Abraham Lincoln's National Bank

[Travlyr]

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.

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.

LMFAO!

[heavenlyboy34]

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?

How is anyone supposed to interpret a disembodied, out of context quote? Try this-get out your bible and read Haggai 2:3 and tell me exactly what it means.

[Travlyr]

HB34 let me suggest this to you. Believe what ever you want to believe. On Lincoln, ignore Willam H. Herndon, Carl Schurz, Henry Ketcham, Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln's own words, and just believe whatever you want to believe. You certainly have the right to be stupid in this world.

[Travlyr]

Now you think Tom's books are biographies? Do you even know what that word means?

"a usually written history of a person's life" DiLorenzo called his book, "The Real Lincoln." Does that sound like a book about who the real Abraham Lincoln was? Do you have any idea 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.

Not history. DiLorenzo revises history and taints it with just enough truth to get gullible people to believe it. He got you hook, line, and sinker because you are too lazy to do your own homework.

In "The Real Lincoln" DiLorenzo makes his readers believe that Lincoln was against auditing the bank. People like you simply believe whatever is written down and walk away believing Lincoln wanted an unaudited bank like the "Federal Reserve System." People like me search for the truth. Here is what I found.

Lincoln wrote an audit the bank amendment for the State Bank of Illinois in 1835. Again it is public record.
Amendment to an Act to Incorporate the Subscribers to the Bank of the State of Illinois - A. Lincoln

People like you believe whatever DiLorenzo writes because he is a member of the Mises Institute. People like me question everything and seek out the facts.

Regarding Sumter and the 'first shots of the civil war', Dilorenzo says this:

Daily Bell: Why didn't the South just stand down? There's a theory that if the South had simply declared its independence and walked away that there would not have been much the North could do. Why did the South willingly embark on a shooing war?

Thomas DiLorenzo: The South did not "embark on a shooting war'" Lincoln did. The states were sovereign, and therefore had a right to secede, as they do today. Article 7 of the Constitution proves this by stating that the Constitution is to be ratified by political conventions of the states. No human being was harmed, let alone killed during the bombing of Fort Sumter. South Carolinians considered the fort to be their property, paid for with their tax dollars, and erected for their protection. Lincoln responded to Fort Sumter with a full-scale invasion of all the Southern states that ended up killing some 350,000 Southerners. For this he is hailed as "a great statesman" by our court historians.

Daily Bell: Still, there are those who believe it was a mistake for the South to have initiated hostilities at all.

Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln had sent warships to Charleston Harbor, and successfully duped the South Carolinians into foolishly firing on the fort. Afterwards, Lincoln wrote a letter of thanks and congratulation to his naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in getting the war started in this way. It was the biggest political miscalculation in American history: Lincoln (and many other Northerners) believed the war would be relatively bloodless and last only a few weeks or months.

DiLorenzo is flat out lying. The South fired the first shots, the second shots, and the third shot which killed the first Union soldier, Elmer Ellsworth, who was a close friend of the Lincoln family. The Confederate Secretary of War even admits to starting the war.

"On April 12, 1861 only hours after Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in the Charleston harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker appeared before a jubilant crowd in Montgomery, Alabama. "No man can tell when the war this day commenced will end," Walker thundered from the balcony of the Exchange Hotel, at the heart of the Confederate capital, "but I will prophesy that the flag which now floats the breeze here will float over the dome of the old capital at Washington before the first of May."

DiLorenzo describes the letter to Captain Fox: "Lincoln wrote a letter of thanks and congratulation to his naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in getting the war started in this way." Why did DiLorenzo lie and say that Lincoln sent warships when the letter he referenced specifically says "you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men"? Because DiLorenzo knows that people like you are too lazy to do your own homework. Then when people like me come along and point to the truth, you just want to fight with them.

WASHINGTON, May 1st, 1861.

Capt. G.V. Fox:

My Dear Sir,

I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.

I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. 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.

Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN.

DiLorenzo flat out lies over and over. You would not know that though, HB34, because you don't do your own homework.

[McChronagle]

So first you claim hes a liar because he says 28 years in politics but you only see 12 years in political office. two very different things. then you keep referring to your op where you post a speech that you "believe" dilorenzo is referring to yet i cant seem to find the quote dilorenzo uses at all in your op. your last quote says "you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men..." dilorenzo says "Lincoln had sent warships to Charleston Harbor, and successfully duped the South Carolinians into foolishly firing on the fort." didnt lincoln send unarmed warships an trick them or not? lincolns letter doesnt refute that at all, it seems to me it confirms it.

[Travlyr]

So first you claim hes a liar because he says 28 years in politics but you only see 12 years in political office. two very different things.

Lincoln only held political office for 12 years prior to being president. Do you consider yourself a politician because you are on a political forum? Do you consider people who vote 'Politicians'? What is a politician in your mind? DiLorenzo wants us to believe that Lincoln was a master politician, but Stephen Douglas was the master politician of that day. Douglas is the Illinois politician with a 28 year career. He got in political office and stayed. Lincoln didn't.

then you keep referring to your op where you post a speech that you "believe" dilorenzo is referring to yet i cant seem to find the quote dilorenzo uses at all in your op.

I don't know for sure that Lincoln's speech in the OP is the speech that DiLorenzo was referring to when he was describing Lincoln's position on national banks. It seems so to me. It is the only speech I could find on Lincoln and national banks and it is from the same year DiLorenzo described.

your last quote says "you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men..." dilorenzo says "Lincoln had sent warships to Charleston Harbor, and successfully duped the South Carolinians into foolishly firing on the fort." didnt lincoln send unarmed warships an trick them or not? lincolns letter doesnt refute that at all, it seems to me it confirms it.

No, Lincoln attempted to send food and supplies to 86 Union men who were being held hostage in Fort Sumter who were running out of food because they had not been resupplied since December 1860. Lincoln did not send warships and he did not say he did. He notified South Carolina that he intended to send provisions to his Union men:

Charleston, April 8.
To L. P. Walker, Secretary of War.
An authorized messenger from President Lincoln just informed Governor Pickens and myself that provisions will be sent to Fort Sumpter[sic], peaceably, or otherwise by force.
[Signed.] G. T. BEAUREGARD.

What would you have done if you were in Lincoln's shoes?

[Travlyr]

So first you claim hes a liar because he says 28 years in politics but you only see 12 years in political office. two very different things. then you keep referring to your op where you post a speech that you "believe" dilorenzo is referring to yet i cant seem to find the quote dilorenzo uses at all in your op. your last quote says "you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men..." dilorenzo says "Lincoln had sent warships to Charleston Harbor, and successfully duped the South Carolinians into foolishly firing on the fort." didnt lincoln send unarmed warships an trick them or not? lincolns letter doesnt refute that at all, it seems to me it confirms it.

They were not "duped" into firing the first shot. Edmund Ruffin proudly fires the first shot to get the war started.

[cbrons]

First of all I read "The New Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.

Perhaps you mean The Real Lincoln? He also wrote Lincoln Unmasked

[Travlyr]

Perhaps you mean The Real Lincoln? He also wrote Lincoln Unmasked

DiLorenzo calls it "The Real Lincoln" but his attempt at rewriting history should be called "The New Lincoln." And if you believe what he writes is gospel, then you haven't done your American History or Economics homework. The South seceded to defend the institution of negro slavery, and "The American System" of economics looks nothing like "The Federal Reserve System" of elastic money and debasement of currency.

The Civil War was about slavery.

Secession was specifically about slavery. The seceding states declare their intentions in their seceding documents.

South Carolina,

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding [i.e., northern] states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . . . [T]hey have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. . . . They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes [through the Underground Railroad].

Mississippi,

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. . . . [A] blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Alabama,

. . . the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party [the Republicans], avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [slavery] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama . .

Georgia,

A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the federal government has been committed [i.e., the Republican Party] will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia [in favor of secession]. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican Party under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. . . . The prohibition of slavery in the territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its [Republican] leaders and applauded by its followers. . . . [T]he abolitionists and their allies in the northern states have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions [i.e., slavery].

Louisiana,

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern Confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery. . . . Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws, and institutions. . . . and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. . . . The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery if Texas either did not secede or, having seceded, should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy.

Texas,

[Texas] was received as a commonwealth, holding, maintaining, and protecting the institution known as Negro slavery – the servitude of the African to the white race within [Texas] – a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

Virginia,

On April 17, 1861, Virginia became the eighth state to secede. It, too, acknowledged that the “oppression of the southern slave-holding states” (among which it numbered itself) had motivated its decision.

Arkansas,

No concessions would now satisfy (and none ought now to satisfy) the South but such as would amount to a surrender of the distinctive principles by which the Republican Party coheres [exists], because none other or less would give the South peace and security. That Party would have to agree that in the view of the Constitution, slaves are property – that slavery might exist and should be legalized and protected in territory hereafter to be acquired to the southwest [e.g., New Mexico, Arizona, etc.], and that Negroes and mulattoes cannot be citizens of the United States nor vote at general elections in the states. . . . For that Party to make these concessions would simply be to commit suicide and therefore it is idle to expect from the North – so long as it [the Republican Party] rules there – a single concession of any value.

North Carolina and Tennessee,

North Carolina and Tennessee became the tenth and eleventh states to secede, thus finishing the formation of the new nation that titled itself the Slave-Holding Confederate States of America. Southern secession documents indisputably affirm that the South’s desire to preserve slavery was the driving force in its secession and thus a primary cause of the Civil War.

[Tpoints]

While the national bank Lincoln wanted is not compatible with the laissez faire system described by Ludwig von Mises, it is also not anything like the elastic money of the international banker's "Federal Reserve System" of counterfeit money and debased currency. Lincoln presents a good strong argument for the national bank.

That's what I learned from watching the Money Masters.

All wars are started by bankers
Gold standard bad, greenbacks good
All assassinated presidents were enemies of bankers, and the biggest ones end up on faces of money
Fort Knox raid was predicted by James Bond