Lincoln Pork Chop

PAF

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
13,573
Charles Burris
June 4, 2025




This is a wonderful, highly entertaining presentation on the pathetic degeneration of fake history, of how American nationalism is based on a lie, the Lincoln Pork Chop.




 
No offense but I just listened to the entire podcast because I had never heard of this Lincoln Pork Chop before. He finally mentions the source at the end, as it was a dish along with Lincoln Apple Cider served in the pub which hosted the crowd after the Lost Speech was given. I could tell that Mr. Burris (I was unaware of him until now) is not an historian, just by his manner of speech and the inaccuracies of his statements. Although some of his sentiments are right, important ones are not right. Burris's baccalaureate was in political science.

Lincoln did indeed give a strong speech that day. It happened, and Lincoln did harbour abolitionist sentiments, although he was a careful politician.
Expatriation (not mentioned by Burris) -- IS abolitionism, and it still is emancipation, albeit to a foreign, former native land of ancestry.

There is no doubt the speech was given, and although it is likely that the contents of it were exagerrated, or misrepresented in terms of linguistics by Whitney's reconstruction, that does not invalidate it. Reconstructions are a valid and supportable historical tool, especially when they have attestations and original sources support them. For example, Joseph Medill, a Chicago Tribune reporter - present at the speech in 1856, affirmed the Whitney version as having captured Lincoln's speech with remarkable accuracy. Granted, it was 40 years later, but it is likely that the representation by Whitney's memory of it contained at least most of the essence of what Lincoln was saying, and it's also QUITE possible that later references to this speech was SUPPRESSED, especially if the speech was indeed eloquently and emotionally prohibitionist in nature, given the fact that Lincoln was a politician and had to succeed as a moderate.

Burris does not mention these facts in the proper context, and he unfairly disparages the 1967 Crissley book, which he has NEVER READ. Dismissing a book you haven't read is amateurish and disrespects your audience. Crissey (b. 1899) was a good reporter and had contacts with people in the Midwest who were either old enough to have been there, or only one generation removed. I would not be interested in listening to that podcast again.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top