The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Point by point

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I am sure Hummel's book puts (see in situ)

Point by point

"You have to realize, that there are hundreds if not thousands books, documents, and papers defending the conventional view that the civil was inevitable. You can't simply ignore those because you don't like them."

This is not a valid argument in favor of Lincoln. A majority of the work out there are Lincoln apologists, cultists, and mythologists. They cannot stand the latest evidence showing Lincoln in a bad light. Lincoln decimated the South, and in doing so had the opportunity to alter history itself. "He who wins the war writes the history books" don't readily remember who this is attributed to, but it is valid in any area of the world. As for not liking them, what makes you think I haven't read, and/or compared, them to begin with?

Evidence supporting your claim that "most historians agree" is a falsehood, there is none, and whatever historians that do agree are apologists or cultists. Is it ok to accept the majority opinion in the face of the minority? Once such "historian" is Doris Kearns, the professed plagairist, the one who's book the latest movie about Lincoln was based upon by Spielberg. Is she the historian you are referring too? All of her lies are exposed by Lerone Bennett, Jr. in his book "Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream", as well as by Harvard University Professor David H. Donald, but you should know this because David is THE foremost historian here in America, he's won several pulitzer prizes for his historical work. So that shouldn't be new to you, should it?

"David Donald is the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time who began writing award-winning books on the subject in the early 1960s."

"the abolitionists in the North were going stronger and would have pushed for a violent end to slavery."

Really? You mean that by the fact that Lincoln had to conscript people to fight in that war? If the war was so "just" why were people FORCED to fight in the war of Northern aggression? And slaves were already on their way out the door to begin with, as most newly discovered evidence has shown and is still being uncovered today.

And, as for the economic factors of the time I'm not entirely convinced of your claims.

Lincoln was killed, that was the response to the governments claim that should the southern states look to secede again, their people that had been so wrongly invaded would not tolerate another.

Required reading: