Q&A with Thomas DiLorenzo (2008)

[@RickEarthplay]

I came upon this video by chance, looked interesting, I was shocked, outraged and outright pissed to hear slanderous comments concerning Lincoln. But I continued to listen.... And, I checked into it myself...WOW....what an eye opener. I am now on a mission of re educating myself...this time without the Educational system !! Thanks !!!

[@dixirose111]

+Rick Earthplay good for you. you are not only honest but brave for you will face the flak of the lincoln lovers who abuse the truth!

[@Jekyll_Island_Creatures]

+Rick Earthplay The government indoctrination centers masquerading as schools caused this. Glad you were able to shuck it off.

[@Straitsfan]

+Rick Earthplay AMEN!!!! PREACH THE WORD, BROTHER!!!! :-) The modern education system is moral and intellectual poison.

[@moseybear]

Go happen upon the debate between DiLorenzo and Harry Jaffa by chance...and see how DiLorenzo is a Von Mises PSYOPS agent when up against a real scholar on the topic.

[@RickEarthplay]

seen it was not impressed, holding the party line is not to any ones benefit. When has war ever been sanitary and sterile? all parties are soiled.

[@flygirl6073]

The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. Thank you Thomas DiLorenzo for your outstanding research!

[@SovereignStatesman]

But Dilorenzo misses the point, because he claims the USA was voluntary, but doesn't prove it. Fact: The American Revolution established each state as a separate sovereign nation; but the Lincoln Administration claimed that they never were, as its sole legal argument for claiming national union over the states.

[@corey2477]

with the government in control of public schooling i’m not surprised they always portray themselves in a positive light. picking up “the real lincoln” tomorrow. very excited to read this.

[@sandman3698]

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" sounds like the right of secession to me.

[@gf4rce]

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation... to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate."- Jefferson

[@dannyturkian9083]

James Madison would disagree.

[@thefreeman8791]

@@dannyturkian9083What is your point? That the founders weren’t a monolith? James Madison also wanted to abolish the states and agreed with Hamilton that the president should have unilateral dictatorial powers. But also, it depends on what version of Madison you are talking about. Madison held a lot of contradictory views in his life time. But when CT and MA and DE effectively seceded in 1815 then Madison did nothing about it.

[@dannyturkian9083]

@@thefreeman8791 Refusal to fight in a war and demanding to become another country are two different things. And by 1815 the war of 1812 was already coming to a close.

[@thefreeman8791]

@@dannyturkian9083 You clearly do not know what you are talking about. MA nullified the War of 1812 and refused to send troops to help out and they continued to trade with the British during the war. That is the definition of treason according to the Constitution. CT also continued trading with Britain during the war, although they did not nullify the war like MA did. And then those three states that I mentioned above did effectively leave the country. They drew up ordinances of secession and then sent delegates to Washington with a list of terms to demand from the Madison administration but when those delegates got to Washington, the Battle of New Orleans just happened and they realized that leaving the union would look bad so they acted like nothing had happened and went home. Secession was seen as a right by New England and the South before the Civil War. Massachusetts threatened secession five times in its history. Secession was pushed by New Englanders like Oliver Ellsworth, Rufus King, John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster, Same Adams and many others. They threatened secession over the election of Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson said to “let them stand undisturbed.” It is hypocritical for New England to be pushing secession and then later on wage a war to prevent secession. And there are quotes from many founders including Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Hamilton that show that they presumed that secession was a thing as well as the first legal treatises of the Constitution written during their time saying that secession was a right and none of them ever contradicted those legal treatises.

[@larrywindsor6433]

Thank you Thomas Dilorenzo for writing a book that confirms what the Sons Of Confederate Veterans have always known!

[@brettsessums718]

Lincoln did the right things!! I am glad that my home state of Mississippi belongs to the USA!!!

[@Lurch685]

@@brettsessums718 were your parents siblings by any chance?

[@chrisc9611]

There will always be those who prefer an authoritarian control over freedom. They likely consider such freedom to be a pipe dream.

[@JimChap]

@@brettsessums718 How do you know what Mississippi would look like now had the Confederates won the Civil War? You are just likely saying this because it's all you know.

[@scottbivins4758]

People always want to see good that Lincoln and that is fine but you have to listen to the bad he did to the southern people. I'm a southerner I see the good that he did but I also see the bad he did to to the southern people too. And he did a lot bad things to to southern people as well

[@BackToConstitution]

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo is an outstanding guest who seeks truth, regardless of the damage it does to the dictatorship! Thumbs up #841

[@TheJunehog]

Bullshit. He is a liar. His assertions are all bullshit. His evidence is all easily examined and disproved.

[@immaculatesquid]

Christopher Shelley well disprove it since its so easy.

[@TheJunehog]

24 am--Here it all is: www.jfepperson.org/dilorenz.htm

[@immaculatesquid]

Christopher Shelley since its so easy i want you to do it.

[@TheJunehog]

Which of DiLornezo's lies would you like me to show up? Or, put another way, which of his _assertions_ would you like me to destroy? Oh, please, pick one.

[@frankfordification]

My great great gramps fought the entire war as a private in the 6th Virginia Infantry CSA! Turns out he was right !

[@capncrunch7259]

@Frank Marion ~ Yeah, Far Right.

[@logicalconceptofficial]

That's not really the moral of this story. The confederates obviously have their own baggage...neither side was great...both were pretty undemocratic, acted unconstitutionally when it served them and only cared about the rights of certain people...Lincoln was certainly a tyrant in my opinion but if the south hadn't seceded over slavery it would be a lot easier to make ur claim that they were right and Lincoln was out of line...too bad they did though! Slavery is indefensible and the southerners who championed it ensured that our constitution would be trampled by the federal government as much as Lincoln ensured that!

[@mobilechief]

Sure was as was mine

[@barrontrump3943]

@@logicalconceptofficial you are dumb. too many words. too much emotion. too much crying

[@jameseverett4976]

@@barrontrump3943 - hey is this THE Barron Trump? I LOVE your Dad!! Trump 2020!

[@mdwilliams79]

I've read both of his books on Lincoln. Truly eye-opening, well written and well documented.

[@SovereignStatesman]

But they miss the point, that the 1) American Revolution established each state as a separate sovereign nation; but 2) the Lincoln Administration claimed that they never were, as its sole legal argument for claiming national union over the states. So the USA made no valid legal argument of national union, ever.

[@WJack97224]

@@SovereignStatesman God did not anoint any colonists with authority to override His gifts of free will, freedom to choose, by composing their manmade constitution and "law." The colonists erred by supplanting Jehovah God with their new god, "We The People."

[@LarryLatham101]

That was a tough, hard hitting interview. Lamb did not pull punches. Nor did DiLorenzo. I thought he came across as sincere, honest, and steadfast with his findings about Lincoln. I'll admit I'm neither a scholar or an historian, but DiLorenzo was impressive to this layman.

[@mrgetrealpeople]

Lawrence Latham We have a union and no slavery go Lincoln!!! Greatest president we ever had.

[@Anon54387]

Lawrence Latham Di Lorenzo got one fundamental fact wrong. The north did not invade the south, the south fired on a federal fort. Incidentally, habeas corpus is not a right but a privilege.

[@Straitsfan]

Lawrence Latham The only reason we have this 'controversy' about Lincoln is because the Lincoln cultists refuse to acknowledge the unpleasant facts about him and his real agenda. DiLorenzo proves beyond a doubt that the states had every right to secede, that it wasn't about slavery much of the time (indeed Lincoln didn't give a damn about them), that the framers explicitly acknowledged the right of the states to secede, etc. If you haven't read his book i highly recommend it. It's very easy to get through (unlike most books my academics), and once you start you'll have a hard time putting it down. It took me only about five days to finish it.

[@Straitsfan]

***** Not true -- Lincoln had blockaded the port of charleston at least the day before. That's why they fired on Sumter.

[@LarryLatham101]

+Mostly Rational Mike It has been several months since I first saw this interview, and so I just watched it again having noted your criticism. You have a point, but I would now characterize it as mixed, with some softball questions from a basically friendly interlocutor, but also with some tough questions that challenged DiLorenzo. Some examples (in paraphrased form): 1. Why do you say you think Lincoln is deified in academic history? 2. What makes you think Lincoln was determined to have a war? 3. What is behind your criticism of Doris Kearns Goodwin? Why do you mean by "court historian?" 4. Who are your critics, and what are they critical of? 5. Why do you say David Donald was the only mainstream historian to legitimately write about Lincoln? I would be interested in your assertion that DiLorenzo has been challenged about sloppy and dishonest scholarship. Are you one of those accusers? Can you provide examples of his sloppiness or dishonesty? He does not strike me as either, but as I have said, I am not a professional historian, and so I come at this as a layman.

[@lonestartx3147]

The truth hurts for a lot of northern apologists. NOW...I want to make clear I am proud to be a citizen of the United States and that my native state is part of it. But, it is absolutely ridiculous to believe that the American states, formerly English colonies, would have entered into a new Union with the pre-understanding they could never get out of it under any circumstances. Make absolutely no sense at all, as the underlying premise of the Declaration of Independence, was that government derives its powers ONLY from the consent of the governed.

[@lonestartx3147]

Really standing the truth on its head. The constitution DOES have a provision for secession. It is called the 9th and 10th amendments. Once again, the Union was a compact between sovereign states. Dance around it all you want, but they were recognized as such by the Treaty of Paris. And it make no sense at all that, after having just rebelled against England, that they would enter into a Union in which they could never get out of. Such is beyond ridiculous. And don't pull the emotional George Washington argument. That was an opinion, not the Constitution itself. Matter of fact, George Washington was the centerpiece of the Confederate Seal itself. And as an addendum, I couldn't care less what you think of Texas. Where are you from? Let's examine your states' history...

[@SovereignStatesman]

LoneStar TX your native state cannot be apart of the United States, since the United States cease to exist as a voluntary Union of states, and became an illegal Empire under Lincoln.

[@SovereignStatesman]

LoneStar TX you "Tenth Amendment howlers" make me laugh. The Tenth Amendment means nothing without the right of secession, which existed before the 10th Amendment.

[@RightToSelfDefense]

When did the union of the States become involuntary? What document did all the States sign that expressly gave up their Sovereignty and declared the union was no longer voluntary? Can you produce such document? It does not exist. US Constitution. The Preamble The preamble say they were creating "a more perfect Union". That means they were creating a NEW union. The old union was gone after the sufficient number of States ratified it. So the old union under Articles of Confederation was not actually perpetual a perpetual union. That was only their wish, their intention. But the Articles did expressly say that States RETAINED their Sovereignty. You don't retain something unless you already had it. That meant they owned their Sovereignty BEFORE the Articles of Confederation existed. Article 7 Article 7 of the US constitution said that the Constitution was between the Ratifying States. Not all the States. Just the ones the ratified the constitution. That it took a minimum of nine States to ratify it. If only eight States ratified the constitution it could have been any other State to ratify it or not. It was their voluntary choice. Therefore, the choice of ratification was up to each State to decide for itself. Therefore, this new union under the US constitution was still voluntary. Did anybody change the terms of the constitution so that the union was no longer voluntary? Please show me that Amendment to that fact. Please show me where the federal government was granted the "legal authority" to stop any State from leaving the union. The creation of the US constitution created a new union. A voluntary union. Is the US constitution still in effect? If there was a new union that was NOT voluntary, a a new constitution would have to be created. Is the US constitution still in effect? Then the union is still voluntary. The War Between the States. he war for Southern independence did not settle anything except that the Northern States were more powerful at that time. If the Southern States did not have the legal right to secede from the union, then tell me how the original 13 colonies had the legal right to secede from Great Britain? But you see Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence (which we all celebrate every July 4th) says, that governments have "legal powers" only throw the consent of the governed. And if the people no longer consent to their government because it no longer protects their inalienable rights it is THEIR RIGHT and THEIR DUTY to dissolve their political bands that have joined them together and to THROW OFF their government. NO WAR CAN EVER EVER EVER TAKE AWAY THOSE RIGHTS. For the support these words and with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, I pledge my Live, my Fortune, and my sacred Honor.

[@southerngent8162]

Not only does the Declaration declare that governments are instituted and operated by the consent of the governed, the very first paragraph says that separation is an inalienable right endowed by God. Secession is stated very clearly as a right so Texas vs. White was just an illigitimate attempt to justify the norths actions of war.

[@kurtsherrick2066]

Freedom means you have the Freedom to leave.

[@jameseverett4976]

Yes, otherwise it's not freedom.

[@FAHRENHEIT-gj4ng]

And the same freedom to alter or abolish a high profile white collar crime incentive Government body. You can enjoy the freedom to leave

[@dannyturkian9083]

Not according to James Madison.

[@thedavid00100]

The face of a honest conservative.

[@rossmartin9054]

***** What does he lie about?

[@gloriouscontent3538]

It can help to look at what Spooner says about Lincoln, and I think he mentions that.

[@SovereignStatesman]

There are no honest conservatives, only neocons. An honest conservative would expressly proclaim that the states never formed a national union.

[@seraphim_eternal]

@@SovereignStatesman I think Thomas DiLorenzo believes that the union was created by the sovereign independent states. He addressed it in his book “The Real Lincoln” and “Lincoln Unmasked”. I haven’t read them in a few months.

[@hiphousing5015]

False. He isnt a conservative. He is libertarian. Conservative was Lincoln. Read, please.

[@Bubblegan]

I had this and several other similar videos by DiLorenzo on a playlist. I recently received an email from KZbin indicating that the playlist was inappropriate and removed. They also noted that further violations may result in account deletion. This is absurd.

[@jameseverett4976]

We need a new book called "the real youtube".

[@jbscornerstore]

I agree completely, deification of ANY politician is terrible for society.

[@SovereignStatesman]

It's not just that: it's a LIE. Lincoln had NO right to invade any state, since the USA is an INTERNATIONAL union among SEPARATE nations. That means that Lincoln was a TERRORIST, since there it was a PRIVATE invasion of SOVEREIGN NATIONS.

[@TheJunehog]

@@SovereignStatesman No. You are wrong. Again. Secession was illegal, and Lincoln had the grave responsibility of preventing it. Your simple assertions are false. We have litigated this elsewhere, but I'm happy to do it again here to prove you are wrong.

@@TheJunehog Gainsaying is not an argument.

[@TheJunehog]

@ Very true. That's why I have replied with cogent, lengthy arguments elsewhere on this page.

[@SovereignStatesman]

@@TheJunehog Secession CANNOT be illegal, since each state remained a separate sovereign nation before and after the Constitution. That CANNOT BE "litigated", since there is no higher court than a legitimate sovereign nation; and the only way to terminate national sovereignty is by express proclamation of the nation itself to form a national union with OTHER nations. So YOU ARE WRONG.

[@juliasamaniego1466]

and the northern states were the recipients of the tarriff money. that's why the governors of those northern states were so quick to offer troops.

[@jameseverett9037]

Notice how quick Mexico has been to put troops at our southern borders because of Trumps tarriff threats. Money talks. Politicians don't do things for the good of the people, but for their monetary interests, and Trump seems to be the only politician who could figure this out and use it to our benefit.

[@Kanfachan]

@douglas wahid It seems to me to be utterly ridiculous (and asinine) to see proposed here that all the death and destruction of the war was done over...tariffs? REALLY??! Yes, tariffs are a important issue, but it’s certainly not worthy of succession and war. It’s not like the Revolutionary War where the colonies had little say in the laws passed by the British Parliament; the south were very much integral to the political fabric of the nation and were very capable of affecting the proceedings of the Congress and the presidency. Heck, most of the presidents up to that time were either southerners or whose family had emigrated from southern states to the midwest. Tariffs on imported goods can increase; but they can also be decreased (and even abolished altogether). In other words: it-by itself-didn’t have the emotional pull to cause such drastic steps to be taken as secession. Unless, the South viewed the increase of tariffs on imports as a round-about-way (by the northern states) of hurting the cotton industry; which was the driving force behind the institution of slavery. In other words, end slavery by destroying the very industry which made it viable.

[@Cam_1776]

Kanfachan it wasn’t over tariffs it was over tyranny like doug just said before your comment the south was offered slavery to be a constitutional right by the north before the war and Lincoln openly said he had no intention of abolishing it in his inaugural address. And to say the entire south saw it as a property right issue is ridiculous less than 6 percent of the southern population owned slaves and some of them being black people. They didn’t represent the entirety of the south who went to fight and look into the northern abolitionists who took the south’s side when it came to Lincoln’s tyrannical take over

[@Kanfachan]

@Cam1776 in what way was the South being tyrannized? I've already said that the southern states were powerful enough to affect all areas and proceedings of the country. Succession is a step taking as the very last result (when all negotiations have been exhausted and are no longer possible), when disagreements have reached an impasse. A scenario which-if we take your explanation to be true-clearly hadn’t occurred.

[@Cam_1776]

Kanfachan uhm? I’m not sure if you watched the video or not I’m assuming you commented on it because you did, but Tom clearly states multiple ways the federal government imposed unconstitutional control over the states of that region and I’ll repeat the ones you can’t seem to understand for some reason in this thread, but levying 50% tariffs - at that time 15% was high, and numbers we see today are around 3%- over exports of the south (btw 90% of the countries entire exports came from there) and paying it to the north isn’t in the constitution let alone it even being moral along with the fact Lincoln said in his inaugural that if the south didn’t pay he would make them by force. Now idk how you can manage to think that is remotely close to a negotiation or even blame the south for wanting to secede but you can go along with whatever narrative that proves to yourself your right, but also forcibly forbidding states the right to consensually leave the union is not in the constitution. Now you can equate in your mind that tariffs and taxes aren’t a form of tyranny which they absolutely are if done under any form other than through the consent of the affected, but the 10th amendment states anything not discerned as a power to the federal government is a power of the individual states. Trust me I grew up thinking it was justified but when logic and reason come into your life and you learn to be open minded you tend to realize intuition on matters such as these show to be prevalent when you know the aim of those in power.

[@jayfelsberg1931]

"The Real Lincoln" occupies a place of honor on my bookshelf here in The Magnolia State. I have not much been into deifying politicians (I covered them in my 35-year career in journalism), and "Honest Abe" is no exception.

[@brettsessums718]

I have read his book ‘the Real Lincoln’ I am from Mississippi, I am white, usually vote Republican nowadays and I highly ADMIRE Abe Lincoln…. Article Section 3 of the Constitution gave the federal government the right to decide if slavery should have been allowed in the new US territories. Lincoln was enforcing the Constitution. He also did not end slavery in the south at first because he felt he did not have the constitutional authority to do so… unless an amendment was passed…. Lincoln was wrong throwing political opponents in jail and throwing opposition newspapers into jail BUT he pardoned all those men as soon as the war was over… he helped do away with ex-post fact law…. Tyrants don’t do those things

[@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558]

@@brettsessums718 "Article Section 3 of the Constitution gave the federal government the right to decide if slavery should have been allowed in the new US territories. Lincoln was enforcing the Constitution." (1) The Supreme Court at the time had already very clearly said otherwise by a large margin. (2) Allowing the southern states to secede would have only made it easier to keep slaves out of the territories, so it's certainly not as if denying the southern states the right to self-government was in any way part of keeping slaves out of the territories. "He also did not end slavery in the south at first" He never ended slavery in the South, particularly not if you count all the slave states as "the South." And as for the emancipation proclamation, the London (England) Spectator was right when they said at the time, "The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." "he pardoned all those men as soon as the war was over" He didn't do anything as soon as the war was over, because he met his Brutus before the war was over.

[@EddBlasco]

Amazing interview. I learned so much about that Lincoln guy. Can't belive they have so many monuments of him in the US!

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

Well, we’re a giant centralized statist bureaucracy so, if that’s what you like, Lincoln and Hamilton really are the heroes.

[@jeffmiller3499]

They have a trend of doing and saying the exact opposite of the truth. So I reckon the reason all the men on the bills were picked, were probably bc they were actually the worst, not the best. Evil always hides behind good, otherwise they would be outted instantly. all the worst people have large "charities" and foundations. & They're responsible for all the worst things on earth. But ohh can't criticize a charity. It's insidiously genius. If I recall I think it started with the crown prince of evil, Rockefeller. Through the PR genius of Edward Bernays

[@sphjinx1448]

@@jeffmiller3499 you’re either joking or blind.

[@b.r.holmes6365]

Yep. Those are the monuments that should be razed

[@freedomsadvocate]

Good job, Tom. I got you to sign a copy of the Hamilton book for my wife at a Mises conf (somewhere.) Thanks again for all your backbone to stand up to the propagandists.

[@gf4rce]

Lee defined secession as " revolution " and was taught by West Pont text books and professors that secession was legal.

[@Zeckellin]

Excellent, Tom. I really enjoyed listening to this.

[@carywest9256]

The only two yankees that are worth a damn,John Wayne and this guy DiLorenzo. They don't whitewash nothing,as it should be told flatout truthfully. I know it burns the Lincoln bootlickers up,and I love it.

[@Eyes-of-Horus]

Read the book several years back. Very good. Another one to read is "The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln" by Larry Tagg. Both are eye and mind opening.

[@Straitsfan]

Did any of you who criticize DiLorenzo ever read his book? He addresses his critics in it.

[@Slippindisc]

+Straitsfan That would be a great reason to have written a book. Anybody who criticizes you, refer them to your book, and say "please refer to chapter 5, page 103 in my book entitled, MrAdvantage's Follies, where I refute you in short order."

[@destinal_in_reality]

That would be clever, but it's not the reason he wrote the book of course, just a good thing to do, to defend your thesis.

[@TheJunehog]

Yes, of course. He's a polemicist, nothing more. Worse, he's totally wrong.

[@TheJunehog]

@Kyle Clark Lol. Your profile pic is the symbol of the army of a white supremacist republic of traitors. So, I'm not sure who's blood should be boiling about now.

[@TheJunehog]

@Kyle Clark That's amusing. No wonder you love the congenital liar DiLorenzo so much. And your flag is the flag of losers. (See: Grant and Lee at Appomattox.)

[@juliasamaniego1466]

scott Michie to answer your question. it was about the tariff. Lincoln wanted to keep slavery intact to keep the cash cow south carolina tarriff monies flowing. the economy and profits were based on slavery. that is why in his first address to congress he states he will not touch the institution of slavery but will use force to get his tarriff monies. he believed his invasion to control south carolina would be of short duration.

[@mtanousable]

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address The lack of upholding the Fugitive Slave Act (nullification by northern states) was an issue, but slavery in general was not. Lincoln continually worked to uphold slavery before, and throughout, the war.

[@spazemfathemcazemmeleggymi272]

Hence the corwin amendment

[@WJack97224]

But Lincoln provoked the Southern States. He denied them the freedom to separate and he made slaver and issue during the war.

[@TigerRifle]

Thank God for Thomas DiLorenzo. Great interview!

[@b.r.holmes6365]

Agreed!

[@batmandeltaforce]

Lincoln's Iron Curtain was no better than Stalin's.

[@kurtjohansson1265]

Easy, easy, let's dial it back, easy

[@batmandeltaforce]

@@kurtjohansson1265 Lincoln killed about 1 million PPL and half of them were slaves. Don't drink the cool-aid, he was a psychopath.

[@kurtjohansson1265]

@@batmandeltaforce easy, let's not give me the bends, easy does it

[@kurtjohansson1265]

@@batmandeltaforce Uncle Joe Stalin came in at about 22-30 million I think....

[@batmandeltaforce]

@@kurtjohansson1265 Quantity makes no difference. Lincoln was a psychopath not unlike Hitler or Stalin, except in quantity.

[@juanitasullivan3372]

Wow! Great interview. I found his book, "The Real Lincoln" at a thrift store. I love history but love the truth even more. Thought I would check out Mr. DiLorenzo for various reasons and really glad I did. Why do people blindly accept what they are told/taught without checking things out themselves? There have been libraries for centuries and one should always read differing writings about any issue. Now with the internet and google, it's even easier, but one sure as heck should start and stop with the internet.

[@marcusaurelius7438]

History is fascinating, but I increasingly believe that it is largely false. As Nopoleon said, "what is history, but a fable agreed upon."

[@Grafknar]

Pavlov’s Dog, govt run schools, and major extra points for martyrdom. But most of all, the federal govt’s very legitimacy rests on acting like what Lincoln did was constitutional; at the very least justified.

[@juanitasullivan3372]

@@marcusaurelius7438 Sadly much of history is whitewashed. This is why I seek out non fiction history written by those on the losing end.

[@bananapatch9118]

One of the best books I ever read !

[@user-xc8bo8ho4c]

Great video! I will definitely listen to this again.

[@moseybear]

Forget this hit piece. Better to watch a real Lincoln scholar not a Von Mises PSYOPS exercise... for example, the Lincoln debate between DiLorenzo and Dr. Harry Jaffa. Dr. Jaffa (correctly) destroys DiLorenzo in that debate. Exposes him for what he is .... a Neo-Confederate.

[@moseybear]

@Kyle Clark DiLorenzo's "facts" are how Wikipedia correctly characterizes City of London proxy and Mises mouthpiece Murray Rothbard as a "historical revisionist". The new PSYOPS now -- as it has been for some time now -- is called "inversion" or a version of Postmodernist bias. "Facts"? What "facts"? Invent them .. .anything to advance the agenda(s) .. which is exactly what Jaffa called out. As one who spent considerable time personally researching antebellum newspapers for a project deconstructing the psychological operations in the Southern states circa 1850 - 1861, tariffs were not the predominant topic as Jaffa notes. But .. since the British were successful in duping the antebellum's 99% to fight and die for the 1% (slightly more owned slaves) ... under the cover story of "states' rights" it is not unusual to see the Neo-Confederates (DiLorenzo) simply amplifying that PSYOPS now. Just as Marx was a product of the British Museum, so is Libertarian dogma a product of the LSE playing its role in the dialectic. No wonder over 100,000 whites left the antebellum South to fight for the Union (as Jaffa correctly mentions). They were not "abolitionists" but rather knew slave labor would replace white labor in the territories. See, "Bleeding Kansas" circa 1850 for some historical background. Today we call this "globalism" .. under "free market" cover. Stop drinking the proverbial "Kool-Aid".

[@seraphim_eternal]

“It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised.” ~ Alexander Hamilton

[@kristineopsommer]

He's another eye-opening dive into history...

[@samevans4834]

That’s rich coming from Hamilton

[@thefreeman8791]

@@samevans4834 It is. However, Hamilton pre ratification was different than Hamilton's post ratification. If you read his Sword and Purse speech to the New York delegates he tells them that if they believed that there was a threat of the government using the sword against them then they could nullify the government's tax laws and refuse to pay their taxes and being that the sword and the purse are inextricably linked then they would be taking away the means that the government could use to coerce the state of NY. Of course, as secretary of the Treasury, he started a militarized branch of the treasury to collect taxes at the point of a gun. Same thing with his friend John Marshall. Marshall told the Virginia ratification convention that Judicial Review was not a thing and that state courts would be supreme in the states. Of course, as Supreme Court justice he dreamed up a justification for judicial review.

[@avarmadillo]

Outstanding interview. I wish we have about 1000 Tom DiLorenzos.

[@kingmiura8138]

The myth started immediately upon his death....the funeral train driven all over the country with black shrouds was a propaganda masterpiece. Deo Vindice.

[@WJack97224]

Thanks for posting this excellent history. Good on ya mate.

[@anniebnannie9945]

Kept a POLITICAL party together? At what cost? 650k lives?

[@druidsstone3463]

And that's not counting the innocent civilians that weren't fighting.

[@andrewfusco8580]

Heh, yeah -- they let the mask slip and revealed to us that they really don't give a shit about human life or liberty. In their world, patriotism = blind devotion to the State.

[@kelson0622]

That is a low number. It is estimated Today closer to a million.

[@americopedroni6837]

I had an argument the other night with a bunch of statist morons who agree with the official narrative that it was necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And I asked, to save millions of people, we have to kill a hundreds of thousands of people, and that is the only course of action for this so-called civilized society? Absolutely insane that people called us justice, that was nothing more than a mass sacrifice. William Tecumseh Sherman put it perfectly, war is hell.

[@thefreeman8791]

Exactly! Also, if the Republican Party was so opposed to slavery, then how would an amendment enshrining slavery as a Constitutional right keep them together?

[@charleshinesjr.2360]

Just saw a History Channel program with Martha Stewart on the Lincoln Cottage in Washington, DC, formerly known as the Anderson Cottage which Lincoln frequently used as a retreat. The moderator took Stewart to a large tree on the cottage grounds saying under this tree Lincoln would "spend hours reading Shakespeare and the Bible." What a scream. Lincoln was anything but religious. The mythology of the Church of Lincoln lives on.

[@charlesstevens4247]

Ever since I found out about the Kennedy assassination I never just take anything for granted .I used to believe my teachers, pastors,policemen, and overall civil servants yet not anymore so by the time I heard about this I wasnt at all shocked.

[@catherinekelly532]

Dr DiLorenzo is quite a Gentleman. We met him in Maryland and heard him give a lecture

[@987657654321]

i did not ignore your "secession is tyranny" explanation, I accepted it and said that it was desirable. Secession is legitimate. If a people overwhelmingly feel that their interest is not being represented in a union that was voluntarily entered into, they have a right to dissolve or leave that union

[@PJ-ns6um]

"In war, truth is the first casualty." -Aeschylus 5th century B.C.E.

[@avarmadillo]

It's nice to hear from great men who love liberty and self-determination; who recognize and oppose slavery in ALL its' forms. Not all are mesmerized by the All-Powerful Unitary State, not all worship at its' hideous temple on the Potomac. Some of us are still true to the Constitution and the principles articulated in the Declaration of our, of all mankind's justification.

[@bradyjanitorialbradyjanito9298]

Excellent !! Truth just resonates doesn't it.

[@connorism69]

Great interview. Thanks!

[@avarmadillo]

“If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for BY THE CONSTITUTION [my emphasis] secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one.” Lincoln appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (Foote, The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

[@JeddieT]

…Amd this is why they never tried Jeff Davis. They knew the truth would come out.

[@ricardoarzac3939]

Superb ! I wish kids in school had to read his books !

[@moseybear]

You will get your wish ...called "Common Core" and postmodernism. Welcome to Confederacy 2.0...also known as "Neo-Confederates", where People = Property

[@organicflatearthprepper7498]

awesome interview.amazing

[@akash_goel]

The fact that this was on C-SPAN makes me believe this guy a lot more.

[@b.r.holmes6365]

This was years ago. I guarantee CSPAN wouldn't allow it to happen now

[@seraphim_eternal]

In his 1825 book, “A View of the Constitution of the United States, William Rawle says: “It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, (in the Federal Congress) because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle of which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.”

[@Joseph565112]

You are sooo right 1stLtDavis. Couldnt have said it better myself.

[@juliasamaniego1466]

also when states joined the union they reserved right to secession in their,ratification agreemwnts. yes that means,when it's no longer in your interest you can walk. according to the codes Lincoln could only send in troops if federal Marshalls requested for an insurrection.not only was there no I surrection within the state of South Carolina but it's federal Marshalls had resigned so there was no request for federal troops. president buchanan' attorney general said there was nothing that could be done legslly. everything Lincoln did was illegal and unconstitutional.

[@SovereignStatesman]

Lincoln said the Union was OLDER than the states. He lied whenever it suited him.

[@johnweber4577]

Tom Evans What he was saying was that none of the states existed as sovereign entities given the fact that they were subjugated colonies and that sovereignty was only attained in those colonies acting as a unified force that secured independence as no one or small group of states could have done alone. And it was the looser configuration under the Articles of Confederation that allowed states to be non-committal to help supply the war effort they had agreed to which led to terrible shortages of supplies and death like during the Winter at Valley Forge. Not to mention it made paying off the debts for the war a mess which is what allowed Shays Rebellion to foment. Washington himself said that the states needed to be bound together in order legally in order to survive. Look at anything he said about Federalism and it’s hardly different from Lincoln’s sentiments.

[@jameseverett4976]

@@johnweber4577 - "in order legally to survive"? What the hell does that even mean? Sounds like the typical made up BS that Lincoln was so fond of; empty rhetoric.

[@lizgichora6472]

On Pursing Truth, such an eloquent explanation ( might / right ), thank you.

[@sixty-eightlemans6554]

I would love to see Mr. DiLorenzo debate Lincoln cultist, Mark Levin.

[@kimcrompton8225]

Dred Scott made the civil war unavoidable because it said that slaves were not citizens of the country. Thus, their owners had a right to their property. This nullified all legislative attempts to end slavery. Resulting in the unavoidable civil war.

[@wdf9464]

I've read a lot of these comments and I doubt very seriously any of them are qualified as Dr. DeLorenzo. Enough said.

[@wdf9464]

He also has a Ph.D. in History

[@southerngent8162]

@@wdf9464 They dont care about that. Just look how they think nobody can be knowledgeable without a degree. These people are superficial morons. They dont look at how many people that are walking around with degrees that are dumb as shit like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she has a degree in economics and doesn't know anything about economics. These people dont use substance to make an argument, they only resort to personal criticism and attacks. That idiot Kaybee I remember from years ago on here. She denies the words written and states and denies the decades of history that led to the separation. She defends govt invasion and attacks defending the Independence of the States. They deny everything the Founders set up and framed.

[@andrewfusco8580]

But, but...slavery! Seriously though, people reject DiLorenzo's scholarly works because they want a powerful and benevolent government to take care of them. What they don't realize is that power and benevolence are mutually exclusive when it comes to government. So they'll cling to mythical saints like Lincoln while vilifying anyone with the intellectual capacity to see Lincoln for who he was.

[@gf4rce]

"The future inhabitants of [both] the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better."- Jefferson

[@muttleo]

I think I'll order the VHS tape

[@robwill5269]

I was born 1985 . I plan to get this book. I've sat and wondered in my own time if Lincoln was a traitor.

[@juliasamaniego1466]

of course northern states had slaves. they may have been phasing it out in certain states but that was not finished. do your homework.lincolns generals owned slaves too.

[@spiritmatter1553]

Four of the Union States were slave states, of course they weren't fighting to "free the slaves."

[@marystevens8742]

New York, New Hampshire, Rhode Is, Connecticut, and Massachusetts brought the slaves here.

[@zanretsukenXII]

Very good watch, thanks.

[@angusmacaleese9342]

The civil war was not fought on slavery. It was primarily fought over STATES RIGHTS. Slavery was one factor but primarily states rights. This is where DiLorenzo is mistaken. other than that i totally agree with him.

[@dixirose111]

+hburchfield3 you are correct that it was all about tariffs. the morrell tariff was the highest in history and that was the straw that broke south carolinas back and caused her to exercise her right of secession

[@pierrebezukhov2698]

Yes states rights. Not Southern States rights, no one in the South thought that their rights were threatened. No, the South got their panties in a wad because Northern states were exercising theirs, by making a dead letter of fugitive slave laws, laws that the Northern states felt were evil and pernicious.

[@huckstered]

What profundity, what a great economy with words.

[@cscptdave]

You are mistaken on all counts, sir. The South merely wanted to leave an unhappy and unhealthy Union to form a country of our own under a government of our choosing. Such is a God-given right of man. Dont want us to fire on Ft Sumter? Dont send a flotilla of 8 ships and 300 troops to violate an agreement we made with you in good faith.

[@andrewfusco8580]

True, but how else was Lincoln gonna grift the South with his punitive tariffs? Cut the murderous brute a little slack 😉

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

Isn’t that exactly what Dilorenzo said?

[@fractalchez]

"The first point. The union was and is indissoluble." No union of any kind is ever indissoluble. Freedom of association is a choice that cannot be removed by any edict, law or parchment. It is inherent in the human condition, hardwired into our being (reference "inalienable rights") and is always, always a choice open to any man or group of men.

[@69timotte]

You do know, I assume, that as a lawyer, Lincoln represented a man that sought to have his escaped slave returned to him, don't you? So much for your noble, miracle man!

[@uzijohn]

Seems like every once in a while, a little truth manages to slip out!

[@johnmccracken7194]

If you feel this to be biased, then read the emancipation proclamation.

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

A public-facing document written by a politician is evidence of nothing but what was politically useful at the time.

[@fws91]

amen. Preach it brother!

[@greenman5555]

Sic Semper Tyrannis

[@spazam]

Great interview.

[@DMChoreographer]

Don't go see Dinesh D'Souza's latest video. He compounds these problems even more than you might imagine. Shame on Dinesh.

[@DeLarger]

The quote about the "mystical chords" of the Union spoken in Lincoln's inaugural, came from Secretary of State Seward.

[@Eazy-ERyder]

Unmasked?? I would just like to congratulate this dud 'discovering' that Abraham Lincoln was indeed a HUMAN BEING with points and views of his time. I had never even heard of this clown before but I am NOT at all surprised to see people like him and Lerone Bennett scratch and claw for their 15 minutes of self-aggrandizing fame

[@sulky_grrrl]

“To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced."-George Washington, Farewell Address

[@jtking76]

If Brian Lamb was a fifth grader at the time of this interview I would have only high praise for him.

[@nothosaur]

Lincoln was one of 11 managers of the Illinois Colonization Society. As President, he said directly to the face of free black men, "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader differnce than exists between almost any other two races...this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both" and "affords a reason at least why we should be separated...It is better for us both, therefore, to be separte."

[@wingit813]

Firstly, Lincoln talked at length about Freeing slaves and was against slavery, although he was for segregation believing blacks and whites (where I suspect your convoluted idea comes from.) The Idea of Repatrioting Blacks was done before Lincoln by President Monroe. Giving them free passage to return to Africa and present day, Libra (which's capital is Monrovia, the only foreign city named for a US President)

[@gf4rce]

' We the people ' was only used because of the uncertainity of which States would actually ratify the constitution. The ' States ' was the original proposed preamble.

[@anthonyrandazzo8836]

Razorfist brought me here 🎉🎉

[@nathansteinfromarkham7109]

Second

[@ironmanjakarta8601]

The establishment court historians wont debate Mr. Dilorenzo any more, proving he's right, and the're are wrong.

[@andrewfusco8580]

Prof. DiLorenzo is clearly in the right, but I doubt that's why court historians are dodging him. At the end of the day, however "enlightened" Lincoln was, he was also a heterosexual cis-gendered white man, and therefore expendable to the mob.

[@bcartner]

In 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration, the Senate passed a proposed amendment that would have prolonged slavery and protected it from any congressional intervention in "any" state. Lincoln promised in his inaugural address that he had no intention to interfere with Southern slavery. Slavery was wrong, and it should have been eliminated through the proper channels. Unfortunately, you still do not understand that Lincoln forced us into war to promote the ideas of his idol Henry Clay.

[@987657654321]

what you described would be better than what we have today, which is a federal government that completely ignores the constitution, partially because there is no threat of secession or nullification.

[@jaxxbrat2634]

Sure took this huge truth to go public.. I always knew The Civil War had deeper issues

[@kellychurchill9869]

Honest! No Subterfuge! Well Done Sir.

[@carolbutler6932]

Truth is what makes us free.....even if it hurts..

[@WJack97224]

I was indoctrinated and brainwashed in the government schools to idolize and revere Lincoln. Then I began battling the IRS and that lead me to read and study and that eventually helped me to undo the false reverence for Lincoln. I read Bruce Catton's Trilogy on the Civil War and learned that Lincoln had 4 choices on how to handle the southern state's desire to secede. Reference: Volume One in the American Civil War Trilogy The Coming Fury by Bruce Catton Page 260 Scott told Sec. of State Seward the new government could do one of 4 things: 1. It could adopt the Crittenden peace plan* and wait for the dissident states to return to the Union; 2. It could blockade the ports of the Southern states, collecting import duties outside the harbors and in general waiting for a break; 3. It could raise huge armies and beat the Confederacy into submission, winning as last “15 devastated provinces” that would have to be garrisoned for generations at immense cost…or 4. It could simply give up and say to the seceded states “Wayward Sisters, depart in peace.” Choices 1, 2 and 4 did not involve the slaughter of nearly 1 million men, women and children and the wounding and maiming of perhaps another 1 million. Any of these were better than the 3rd option. By far the last choice, #4, was the best and would have paved the way for reconciliation later. Lincoln was not a “great” president, just as Wilson and FDR were not “great” presidents. Interestingly, Lincoln denied the very first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence to wit: “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Lincoln refused to concede that the colonists, who just 85 years previous, i.e. 1776, had seceded from England and that they certainly would never have put their necks under the heel of a dictatorial and tyrannical central government the likes of which they had just dismissed. This is a truth that is not taught in government schools or admitted by the mainstream media or by well known writers. It would have been anathema to the very foundation of liberty and the revolution to have condemned future generations to abide by the colonist's opinions, beliefs, views, prejudices or “false religions” as they then would have imposed slavery. How utterly duplicitous would that have been? It must be remembered that politics is violence and political government is the bane of humanity; it is not Christian and voting is an act of violence as the voter sanctions the politicians to use force to impose the voter’s opinions, beliefs, views, prejudices and “false religion” in “the land of the free and home of the brave.” How diabolically ironic is that? I recommend Ted R. Weiland’s messages: www.kingdompromises.org/kingdompromises_audio/1145.mp3 Pick the audio up at the 33:22 mark and listen to Weiland explain the problem of voting and political government. This Biblical information was never mentioned in the political, manmade, government schools and one private school that I attended.

[@mrlume9475]

Came upon this video by accident and its so refreshing to see an interviewer allowing the interviwee to talk fully without interruptions and forcing their own agenda.

[@kirkbowyer3249]

GO HOME TO NORTH KOREA WHERE YOU BELONG; THE FIRST AMENDMENT CANNOT BE USED TO SUBVERT THE UNITED STATES OR ITS CONSTITUTION; WHAT THIS MAN IS SPEAKING AND HAS WRITTEN ABOUT MAY BE TREASONOUS UNDER THE LAWS HE SEEKS TO UNDERMINE. SENATE RESOLUTION 213; OCTOBER 17TH, 1919 www.marxists.org/history/usa/government/ussenate/1017-ussenate-resolution213.pdf

[@seattle0266]

And it really did not matter what Lincolns intent was. A northern victory freed millions of people

[@deborahdean8867]

Is that why the underground railroad had to go to Canada? Freed to the ghetto fidnt eo ry k well either, and the ex slaves who got land and farmed were destroyed by roosevelt in the great depression. More federal programs.

[@Rundstedt1]

(6/6) That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE." JQ Adams. 1837

[@Rundstedt1]

(8/8) So notice, first of all, Madison is denying that he ever advocated for unilateral secession. He also derides secession and those that do advocate for it and says that Jefferson cannot be used in their favor either. Madison clearly calls the idea of secession a "colossal heresy" and a heresy against the constitution means that it's unconstitutional.

[@avarmadillo]

The Article of Confederation was described in the document as a "perpetual union." Yet, the states seceded from it in favor of the Constitutional Compact--which is not a perpetual, but is described as a "more perfect" union; a union that will allow the states to work better together for their MUTUAL benefit. The Founders rejected the word "perpetual." No state would have signed a Compact they could not leave--that would have been a sovereignty suicide pact. If you can't leave, you're not free."

[@anomilumiimulimona2924]

2:36 did you hear what he says there?🤔

[@gf4rce]

Chief Justice Roberts reasserted this during the Affordable Health Care Act case when he declared that federal laws are void if they "undermine the status of the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system.”

[@WJack97224]

Yep, shove this down Joe Biden's mouth. Texas is trying to do this with it's border fence.

[@Rundstedt1]

(2/2) The Civil War was not fought over issues of the tariff of banks or agrarianism vs. industrialism. These and similar kinds of questions have been the bread and butter issues of American politics throughout the nation's history, often generating a great deal more friction and heat than they did in the 1850s. But they have not caused any great shooting wars." McPherson "The Mighty Scourge" p10

[@trogenus]

Thank you very much

[@Rundstedt1]

(8/8) "The Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question.... Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question." L.M.Keitt, US Congressman South Carolina Secession Declaration Debates

[@mattytripps]

absolutely love this channel

[@Rundstedt1]

(3/3) "the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure." James Madison

[@stevenmay2937]

tom rocks.... he is 100% right

[@69timotte]

freedom for all of the people of this land make it worthwhile.