The Real Lincoln- A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo is written in an attempt to demystify Abraham Lincoln. Popular belief is that Lincoln was the greatest President of the United Sates, known as the Great Emancipator. As such, Lincoln is credited with waging a war to abolish slavery. DiLorenzo, on the other hand, argues that Lincoln was simply enacting a plan that he and the Republican (formerly Whig) party had been pushing for quite some time. The Real Lincoln was not the great emancipator, but rather was driven by the desire to centralize the federal government and enact the so called “American System” of government devised by Hamilton & taken to new levels by Henry Clay.

DiLorenzo wastes no time getting to the crux of his argument. The Civil War was not fought to end slavery as “A war was not necessary to free the slaves, but it was necessary to destroy the most significant check on the powers of the central government: the right of secession” (p. 9). The Real Lincoln is organized into chapters designed to tear down the ‘myth’ of Abraham Lincoln. To begin with, DiLorenzo attacks the notion that Lincoln had the best interest of the slaves in mind. Always the master politician, Lincoln was always “opposing ‘social and political equality’ of the races” while taking “the contradictory position of also defending – at least rhetorically – the natural rights of all races to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence” (p. 13). Lincoln was on record as saying that he did not oppose slavery; indeed, he had no desire (or constitutional right) to abolish the institution. He even favored a plan to send all blacks – slave and free alike – to Liberia for colonization. His interest was in maintaining America for the white race.

DiLorenzo argues that Lincoln could have easily emancipated the slaves peacefully if he so chose. Virtually all other former slave countries had done so[1], why didn’t America? Due simply to DiLorenzo’s common theme – the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, but rather with the consolidation of federal power. The southern states would not be able to secede on Lincoln’s watch because in his opinion, the states had no right to secede in the first place. Even though the original thirteen colonies ‘seceded’ from England, and the North Atlantic states considered secession during the democrats (Jefferson & Jackson, specifically) reign, Lincoln maintained that the states had no right of secession. With the majority of Northerners supporting the secession of the South, DiLorenzo argues that the war may have been avoided entirely (p. 106). In fact, DiLorenzo believes that after a short separation, the federal government would be sufficiently ‘checked’ for the Confederacy to rejoin the Union.

During the war, DiLorenzo points out that Lincoln was nothing more than a dictator. Not a ‘good’ or ‘benevolent’ dictator as some would label him, but an actual wartime dictator. DiLorenzo uses as his main evidence the suspension of Habeas Corpus[2] during Lincoln’s entire presidency. Lincoln and the Republican Party also harassed voters, seized property, shut down newspapers, jailed journalists and editors, and encouraged the total destruction of the Southern economy. According to DiLorenzo, “no man who had the least bit of respect for constitutional liberty could ever have done such things. It would have been simply unthinkable to [Thomas] Jefferson, [James] Madison, or [George] Washington” (p. 132).

DiLorenzo is also clearly defensive of his position. In addition to the several mentions of other scholars and their opposing views, DiLorenzo adds an entire chapter devoted to nothing more than refuting his critics and defending his position. With such forceful denunciations as “The extent to which certain ‘Lincoln scholars’ will publicly deny plain historical facts is sometimes astounding” (p. 288) DiLorenzo begins responding to his critics one by one. Noting that he expected controversy, what he did not expect “was the lack of civilized behavior, manners, and concern for the truth on the part of certain critics” (p. 280), especially the ‘neoconservative’ think-tank The Claremont Institute.

The Real Lincoln is a controversial book, to be sure. Once the reader is able to overcome the initial shock of the subject matter, the evidence is well researched and DiLorenzo’s argument stands up under the evidence presented. It is true that DiLorenzo expected controversy – in fact, he invited it. Rather than simply presenting his argument and the evidence to support it, DiLorenzo seems to go to great lengths to denigrate Lincoln rather than to simply demystify him. In this light, it is no surprise that the list of his critics is so long – in fact he appears to pick fights with some of them throughout the book (especially Jaffa). Anyone who is more than the most casual of history students certainly understands the myth of Abraham Lincoln[3] is simply that – a myth. Unfortunately, by his aggressive stance and clear dislike of Lincoln, DiLorenzo probably alienates a good deal of readers. Regardless of his intentions, Lincoln’s actions did save the union, his actions did lead to the emancipation of the slaves, and his war “fundamentally transformed the nature of American government” (p. 2).

Footnotes:

[1] Columbia and Venezuela suffered violence during their emancipation periods, but this is blamed on revolutionaries who used the slaves for their own purposes, not simply a violent uprising against slavery (p. 48).

[2] Habeas Corpus grants the rights all Americans are familiar with: protection from unlawful arrest. Right to a speedy trial, right to confront your accusers, right to trial by a jury of one’s peers, right to representation of a lawyer, protection from unlawful searches and seizures, etc...

[3] Not to mention the myth of Washington, Jefferson, Kennedy, Roosevelt etc. All of the ‘great’ American leaders are shrouded in myth of one form or another.