The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
Writer: Thomas J. DiLorenzo
An Unbalanced Critique on a Morally Gray President
Ranking: 2 stars
(DISCLAIMER: This review is going to be a break in form from my usual reviews as this is actually an essay I wrote for a College Civil War Class. I figured since I frequently write reviews about comics, and this essay is basically a review about a book critiquing my favorite United States President, Abraham Lincoln, I thought, "why not go ahead and post it here with the rest of my reviews." Please enjoy!) Many regard Abraham Lincoln as America’s greatest president because of the great lengths he went through to preserve the Union during the Civil War. However, the question of whether or not Lincoln’s wartime policies were justified has been a subject of great debate among historians. One historian in particular, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, is especially critical of Lincoln’s actions. His book, The Real Lincoln, denounces the president as a manipulative and lying authoritarian who unnecessarily waged war against his own people in order to centralize the power of the national government. This overt bias against Lincoln calls into question the author’s disagreement with Lincoln over secession, the president’s supposed “real” agenda, and his controversial administrative decisions. One area where bias is particularly evident in DiLorenzo’s critique against Lincoln is his statement that Lincoln’s arguments against secession were false. In The Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo discusses that when the southern states seceded to form the Confederacy, Lincoln stated that secession was unconstitutional and therefore an act of treason. DiLorenzo argues that Lincoln’s claims against secession were false and that the constitution protects the right of secession. His argument ultimately comes across as biased as he neglects to provide sufficient supporting evidence. For instance, DiLorenzo defends the state’s right to secede as a central cornerstone to the nation’s founding by pointing out that the Declaration of Independence was the an act of secession from the British government and that when the U.S Constitution was ratified, it did not establish a perpetual or permanent union between the states. He further tries to defend secession by citing how Thomas Jefferson defended secession when the New England Federalists threatened to withdraw from the Union and how both Jefferson and James Madison favored state over federal power during the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. DiLorenzo neglects to mention, however, that while the constitution does not formally address the idea of a perpetual union, it is implied through the “We the People” opening of the constitution, a phrase which Chief Justice John Marshall interpreted to mean that the nation was established by the American people as a whole rather than the individual states. Not only does Justice Marshall suggest perpetual union but also national supremacy. Marshall’s judicial interpretation and the Constitution help serve as effective counterarguments against DiLorenzo’s claim that Lincoln’s stand against secession was wrong. In addition to protesting against Lincoln’s statements about the constitutionality of secession, DiLorenzo also argues that waging war on the confederacy was unnecessary as Lincoln had alternative methods to reach a peaceful resolution with the south. DiLorenzo believes that the Emancipation Proclamation was as an impractical war measure designed to shift European support away from the Confederacy by making it appear that the Union was fighting for a noble cause while not actually freeing any slaves. Essentially, DiLorenzo states that the Proclamation accomplished nothing except to prolong the war by gaining the favor of European powers, therefore preventing any chances of peaceful negotiations with the south. Unfortunately, DiLorenzo fails to provide sufficient evidence to support his arguments. For instance, he states that Lincoln could have used peaceful methods for emancipation by drawing comparisons to European nations who had abolished slavery without armed conflict; emancipation was the result of slavery becoming economically ineffective due to the rise of capitalism. The author points to Britain who helped compensate slave-owners for their lost profits to illustrate, but he fails to mention the highly conservative values of the south that would have rendered methods like compensated emancipation unsuccessful despite their having worked in the European nations. DiLorenzo also argues that while Lincoln’s proposal for compensated emancipation was rejected by the South, Lincoln could have attempted to enforce the proposal through since slavery was declining in the south due to decreased support for the Fugitive Slave Law and stagnation of the southern economy. This argument is ineffective since Lincoln had previously attempted this in the border state Delaware, who rejected the proposal on the grounds of federal interference despite slavery not being a central component of the state’s economy. Overall, DiLorenzo’s arguments for why Lincoln did not attempt peaceful emancipation are ineffective. One of DiLorenzo’s biggest arguments in The Real Lincoln is that Lincoln manipulated and changed constitutional principles to carry out his supposed “real agenda. Throughout the entirety of the war, Lincoln proclaimed that the Union’s purpose for waging war on the Confederacy was to preserve the union and the ideas and principles established by its founding fathers. DiLorenzo states that this was a facade to hide Lincoln’s true intentions for waging war on the confederacy and to carry out the economic goals established by Henry Clay and the Whig Party. This goal primarily would be conducted through the “American System,” which enforced protectionism or concentration of economic power in the federal government and consisted of protectionist tariffs financing corporations and centralization of banks. DiLorenzo states that the South seceded from the union because this system’s centralized economics went against the principles of free trade. Government financing of private companies was declared unconstitutional. Essentially, DiLorenzo states that Lincoln lied about the war being fought to preserve the union and that its true purpose was to forcibly implement the American system onto the south, a violation of the constitution and individual rights. There are several flaws in DiLorenzo’s argument. For instance, DiLorenzo provides evidence through Lincoln’s promotion of Whig economic policies throughout his political career and through Lincoln not discussing the issue of slavery before 1854. Taking Lincoln’s beliefs about white supremacy into account as well, DiLorenzo claims that Lincoln promoted his views against slavery simply because slavery stood in the way of his economic goals. Although Lincoln did indeed oppose equal racial status, he still opposed slavery. He believed that the founding fathers desired the eventual eradication of slavery, which was evidenced by the fact that the constitution never mentioned slavery, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 made slavery illegal in the Northwest Territories. Another flaw in DiLorenzo’s argument is that he proclaims that the founding fathers and states were opposed to government subsidies for internal improvements. He points to James Madison, who vetoed a bill that provided subsidies for canal and road building in 1861. In actuality, however, Madison had advocated for the passage of the nation’s first protective tariff in 1816. DiLorenzo also states that the American System wasted government funds. He claims that millions of dollars were lost when Indiana and Michigan relied on government subsidies to fund the construction of roads and canals. What DiLorenzo neglects to mention is that protective tariffs also helped promote economic prosperity because they expanded free labor during the transportation revolution and that laws passed by Lincoln such as the Homestead and Morill Acts, along with the Pacific Railroad Bill, helped promote economic prosperity in the Union following the war. Further weakening DiLorenzo’s arguments is that he never elaborates on the problems brought on by slavery in the south. Slavery stagnated southern economy; tariffs increased northern economic prosperity. This failure to look at both sides of the issue makes DiLorenzo’s argument that Lincoln’s “real agenda” was to enforce the American System on the south ineffective. A final area in which DiLorenzo’s bias against Lincoln is present is in his arguments against Lincoln’s dictatorial decisions. As president, Lincoln violated several areas of the constitution in order to maintain order in the northern states during the Civil War. These decisions included declaring war on the Confederacy without Congress’ approval, the occasional suspension of Habeas Corpus, censoring and shutting down newspaper publishers, as well as placing thousands of northern citizens under military arrest without trial. While several historians have claimed that Lincoln’s actions were justified as they helped preserve the Union, DiLorenzo proclaims that Lincoln did not care for an individual’s civil liberties and repeatedly violated the constitution to expand executive power. Although Lincoln’s actions did indeed violate the constitution and can be considered dictatorial, DiLorenzo’s arguments are weakened by biased and insufficient evidence since several of Lincoln’s decisions did prove beneficial to his goal of preserving the union. For instance, Lincoln censored and shutdown multiple newspaper publishers, but DiLorenzo claims that Lincoln arrested them solely on the basis that they were “traitors” because they protested against his policies and the war. This was supposedly evident when Lincoln forced Gerard Hallock to sell ownership of the Journal of Commerce in 1864 when it printed editorials promoting peace, forcing Hallock into government submission. What DiLorenzo neglects to mention is that three years later this same newspaper published false information about Lincoln drafting 400,000 troops, an act which would have hindered already struggling Union war efforts in 1864. In essence, Lincoln’s censoring newspapers was a necessary measure as it prevented the publication of stories that directly interfered with Union war efforts. DiLorenzo also fails to mention that Confederate intelligence agencies such as the Confederate Secret Service Bureau would use Union newspapers to gain information about the Union Army. Another area of dictatorial authority that DiLorenzo protests against is Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus, a decision which he argues was done simply in order to arrest anyone who did not support Lincoln’s wartime policies. He also states that Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that suspension of Habeas Corpus could only be carried out by Congress and that Lincoln ignored his order without appealing to a higher court. Again DiLorenzo neglects to mention that although Lincoln did ignore Taney’s order, he was supported by constitutional lawyers who believed that his actions were necessary to quickly suppress individuals suspected of treason, a decision which proved useful in stopping the riots in Baltimore, Maryland in 1861. DiLorenzo’s bias toward Lincoln’s administrative decisions keeps him from acknowledging the good Lincoln did to preserve and maintain order in the Union. While DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln attempts to analyze the controversial actions and decisions made by the sixteenth president, it is ultimately biased and ineffective. Rather than analyzing both sides of Lincoln’s decisions, he provides one-sided evidence when attempting to support his arguments against Lincoln’s attacks against secession, the president’s supposed real agenda, as well as Lincoln’s controversial dictatorial policies. If DiLorenzo wanted to provide a fair critique on morally ambiguous decisions that Lincoln made during his time as president, he should have provided evidence that both supported and criticized the president, allowing his arguments to be more balanced and effective. Because DiLorenzo neglects to provide important evidence that contradicts his own however, his conclusions in The Real Lincoln come across as biased and questionable.
