My Book Reviews

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, by Thomas Dilorenzo

Thomas DiLorenzo lays out a prosecutor's case for the evils of President Abraham Lincoln. The author's perspective is that of an economist and so it's not a surprise that he sees Lincoln through the lens of the appallingly bad economic policies (high tariffs, corporate welfare, and a strong national bank) that "The Great Emancipator" championed his entire political career. Lincoln's defenders, like Harry V. Jaffa, look through a different lens and see a champion of natural rights, the Declaration of Independence and opposition to slavery. But no balance is to be found here, no nuanced examination of possible explanations, just a straightforward diatribe against America's first "dictator." DiLorenzo boldly concludes that Lincoln was "The Great Centralizer" and thus was responsible for many of the ills of the twentieth century.

The author does not deny that the Civil War was about slavery. He makes it quite clear that the Southern states were deeply motivated to preserve this "peculiar institution" as it was called. Fortunately, little effort is made to defend the Confederacy in this book. Indeed, it would be quite hard to do so, since the governments of the Southern states were in the grip of slave owners bent on preserving slavery at all costs. What is asserted is that for Lincoln and the Republicans, the war was about preserving the Union so that the Republican agenda could be implemented and that Lincoln clearly articulated this repeatedly. Although the author does not talk much about the (Southern) Democrats, he does admit that they were just as corrupt as the Republicans.

Many aspects of Lincoln are examined in regards to the Civil War. Starting off with Lincoln's racial beliefs, the possibility of peaceful emancipation, Lincoln's real (economic) agenda, Lincoln's actions during the war, and the war's legacy are all examined with an eye for the worst. Note that this book is not a history of the Civil War (or "War between the States" as the author likes to call it). It is an indictment of one man and his legacy. This book is certainly not a good introduction to this era. It would be a good idea to read a general history of the Civil War prior to diving into this. Also, one should be sure to read some opposing views after reading this to get a balanced view. Harry V. Jaffa's recent "A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War" is probably a good defense of Lincoln (although I haven't read it).

Perhaps the most crucial aspect of the debates surrounding the Civil War is whether or not States have a Constitutional right to secede. Critics assert that DiLorenzo willfully misunderstands the difference between a Constitutional right to secede (non-existent, according to the Lincoln defenders) and a natural right to revolution and that since the Confederacy was engaged in the former and not that latter, it was illegitimate and therefore all of Lincoln's actions were justified. The actions that Lincoln took during the war are some of the most atrocious things that one will read and may seem hard to believe to the modern reader. The notion that the President could shut down newspapers at will, imprison people without trial and send in Federal troops to Maryland to ensure that only loyal Unionists (i.e., Republicans) were elected to the state's legislature boggles the modern mind. It is absurd to assert that this was all constitutional, as Lincoln's defenders do. The author points out that some of the top thinkers of this era, like abolitionist Lysander Spooner and philosopher Lord Acton, both despised slavery, but believed that the South should have been allowed to secede.

Is the author able to prove his point? I hesitate to make a judgment since this is only the second book I have read on this era, the first being Neely's pro-Lincoln "The Fate of Liberty". While DiLorenzo makes a good case for what Lincoln's "real" agenda was, it's not clear that he succeeds in showing that the Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery was just such an abomination that even if its ending was not Lincoln's intention, it was such an overwhelmingly good result that any alternative policy that delayed its ending by even a day has to be viewed with healthy skepticism. The author seems to sense this and labors mightily to show that Lincoln's efforts lead to great evil as well, even going so far as to claim that Lincoln was ultimately responsible for the rise of the Nazis in Germany!

I think one must read a good defense of Lincoln in order to determine if he's truly as monstrous as the author claims. But I believe DiLorenzo has done a fair job presenting his side. The author does seem to overstate his case at times, leave out vital information on certain topics and appear disingenuous on others. In other words, he seems to suffer from the same flaws that he attributes to Lincoln scholars who worship at the feet of old "Honest Abe".

Lincoln: Hero or Monster?

0 Comments: