One of the Greatest Scholars of All Time: Author of
one “of the more amateurish neo-Confederate books,”*
a “travesty of historical method and documentation”**
Anyone visiting from the historical writer (but see below) Tom DiLorenzo’s most recent comments on the unfairness of the world can visit here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and make up his or her own mind about the infiltration of the freedom movement by neo-Confederate kooks and other advocates of racist hatred. (Note: it’s recommended that enthusiasts for the Confederacy read at least a few of the posts documenting Lew Rockwell‘s connections to holocaust deniers, racists, and other, um, colorful characters and think about it before cutting and pasting heated denials.)
Note that the unnamed person (not me, but I endorse the statement, anyway) quoted in this article in The New Republic mentioned “the confederacy,” not “the confederate government,” which is yet another example of Tom DiLorenzo’s research and documentation skills, as demonstrated here, here (one of the few historians strongly critical of Abraham Lincoln refers to the “blatant errors of the more amateurish neo-Confederate books, such as Tom DiLorenzoâ??s The Real Lincoln“), and here (in which about the only other historian similarly critical of Lincoln notes that DiLorenzo’s work is “a travesty of historical method and documentation”).
*Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
**Richard M. Gamble
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo5.html
Does that sound like a defense of the Confederacy to you like it does to me?
DoLorenzo writes that a Confederate soldier felt he was “… fighting for matters real and tangible . . . our property and our homes.”
He fails to include that, to that soldier (and to the Confederacy generally), “property” included “people.”
TGGP,
Yes, I think he is at least misrepresenting what he has said in the past. I am not speaking of his present state of mind (which may have changed, though I doubt it), but his comments in the past are clear defenses of the Confederacy. He attempts to gloss that over by misrepresenting the descriptions of his position offered by others, who, he says claim that he defended “the Confederate government,” following which he says that that government did bad things and he would never have defended that. That is either a bit of sleight of hand or more evidence that the poor man suffers from an extreme case of intellectual sloppiness and laziness. Hard to say which.
I have just waded through this whole conversation. Some good arguments have been made and discussed. Dr. Palmer had offered some insights into complex issues. And Jeff Riggenbach has given us a new example of envy made meaner by spite.
“Lastly, Mr. Lopez ‘s remark seems to suggest that one should never support any kind of collective action in self defense.”
No, I am explicitly saying that individuals have the right to tend to their own affairs and stay out of wars if they choose to. That includes the Revolutionary War or any other glorious struggles for freedom.
Thank you, Mr. Lopez, for the clarification, which is helpful. I gather that you consider it morally acceptable, but not mandatory, to fight in a glorious struggle for freedom. Am I correct?