Youtube Argument: “THE PhD”

Anonymous said:
The video you suggest is by some amateur lying Neo-Confederate hack, this video is by a PhD Historian with the full backing of his field. You might as well have linked to a video by a holocaust denier to deny that reality

My reply:
You believe a PhD Historian can only know the truth, and a man who isn’t a PhD can’t possibly know the truth? And here you are believing anyone with a degree – JUST LIKE the man with the PhD did. He believed everyone with a degree, and they believed everyone with a degree. Facts are facts. You have the entire world at your finger tips. Can you provide an argument against the content of the man who doesn’t have a PhD? Because I can tell you right now, I don’t have a degree of any sort and I can bury Mr. PhD in five minutes.

I have a book right here in front of me called, “Lincoln as he really was”, written by Dr. Charles T. Pace (Medical Doctor). Is my PhD better than your PhD? What about Thomas DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola University? He wrote a book called, “The Real Lincoln” and “Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe”. Does his book count for much?

Colonel Seidule received a B.A. from Washington and Lee University, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in history from The Ohio State University. Is he smarter than the economist with a PhD? Is he smarter than the Medical doctor? Is he more capable of researching Abraham Lincoln and that thing we call the civil war? Perhaps Colonel Seidule isn’t as passionate about the subjects? Perhaps the Colonel goes with the official story – teaching at a U.S. military academy and all. It would be a little shocking for a West Point history professor to say President Lincoln caused the death of over 700,000 people for all the wrong reasons. See Walter Williams (Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University) piece, “Historical Ignorance”, for the details: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/walter-e-williams/the-war-of-1861/

I have all the confidence in the world that you can go out and research a subject you are passionate about and come up with a more accurate perspective on it than people with all sorts of letters next to their name.

I have a friend who is a PhD, I enjoy great conversations with him about many things, I’ve never assumed he was able to keep up with me because he has a PhD. He keeps up with me because we have the same interest, it has nothing to do with his college career. There are plenty of really dense PhD’s. I believe if you wanted to know this topic and be certain about it, you are very capable of doing so.

Sitting back and listening to someone regurgitate the official story isn’t going to help get you the facts. I don’t think that bothers you so long as nobody gives you a hard time about it. It bothered me because 752,000 Americans were killed; I wanted to know why. We lost 450,000 in World War II, plenty of people want to know why. The questions are very simple. #1 Was it a violation of the United States Constitution to own slaves? #2 Was it against the United States Constitution to secede? The answer to both of those questions is no. A good question at this point, “did they try to amend the United States Constitution to make it unlawful to own slaves?”. The answer to that question is no. Those are intelligent questions.

Here’s a strange question; did they (the Northern dominated congress) propose an amendment to guarantee the states that the United States congress would never interfere with the institution of slavery?. And the answer to that is yes, the Corwin amendment, passed both houses a month and a half prior to the beginning of the war.

The Corwin amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” March 1861

These are just a few of thousands of things to think about. My question to you is, how did a History Professor (an expert on the civil war) bypass the most obvious problems with his story? I’m getting my information from Lincoln’s first inaugural address. Also from Lincoln’s first inaugural address: “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.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.