# Think Tank > History >  Book Review: The Real Lincoln, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

## FrankRep

*The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War* 
- Thomas DiLorenzo


*An honest look at Abe: Abraham Lincoln is usually regarded as a saintly figure, but a detailed book about Lincoln shows that much of what historians say about him is pure fiction.*


John J. Dwyer | The New American
Mar 20, 2006


The Real Lincoln, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, New York: Three Rivers Press, 2002, 361 pages, paperback (2003 ed.).

Have you read Thomas DiLorenzo's landmark book The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War? If not, ask yourself these five questions: 


1) Was Lincoln America's greatest president? 
2) Did he save the Constitution? 
3) Was he the preserver of the Founding Fathers' vision for America? 
4)Was he the great emancipator of and friend to the black race? 
5) Was he a devout, professing Christian the final years of his life?

I know I am venturing into sacred territory for many patriotic Americans with such questions, and I assure you that I do so with soberness and concern at the reaction it may generate. The stakes for our country, and the lessons we draw from its past as we assess how to properly govern it today, however, are too important not to do so. So, I am compelled to suggest that if you were tempted to answer yes to even one of those questions, you purchase The Real Lincoln. An eye-opening read awaits you.

Among other things, DiLorenzo demonstrates in the book Abraham Lincoln's obsession with building and expanding an imperial American colossus; his contempt for the rule of law--local, federal, or international; his efforts to drain civil power from the states who formed the union and centralize it in the seat of national government; his heartfelt wish to free the slaves--then deport them to Africa and elsewhere; and his rejection of the Just War principles formulated through centuries of Christian thought by such theologians as Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin.

Indeed, over the past four years or so, DiLorenzo and The Real Lincoln have stirred up a hornet's nest of frothing, apoplectic liberals and neo-conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, as they vainly attempt damage control of the bleeding myth of Lincoln, the "Redeemer President."

In fact, you yourself might be saying along about now, "Hey, I know who Abraham Lincoln is, and why is this Dwyer character seeking to tarnish him?" Well, allow me, with respect, to touch on just one of the many examples where Lincoln the myth resides far from Lincoln the real man: Lincoln the supposed friend to the blacks.

He certainly expressed his enthusiasm at the prospect blacks might gain their freedom, as long as it did not infringe on the successful governance of the Union--and as long as they were then shipped out of America to Africa, South America, or islands in the Caribbean. Yes, that is right, as long as they were deported to distant lands and continents.

DiLorenzo provides page after page of quotes from Lincoln himself and his associates that offer irrefutable proof of the man's decades-long hope that freed blacks be removed from this country. "Send them to Liberia, to their own native land," he said. He approvingly quoted his mercantilist mentor Henry Clay as saying that "there is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children" since "they will carry back to their native soil the rich fruits of religion, civilization, law and liberty," and that sending all blacks back to Africa would prove a "signal blessing to that most unfortunate portion of the globe." After signing the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln told Congress: "I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization." Eliminating every black person from American soil, Lincoln proclaimed, would be "a glorious consummation," and their peaceful "deportation" would allow "their places [to] be ... filled up by free white laborers."

According to DiLorenzo, famed abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison certainly understood Lincoln's intentions to colonize blacks in other lands when Garrison declared, "President Lincoln may colonize himself if he choose, but it is an impertinent act, on his part, to propose the getting rid of those who are as good as himself."

Regarding another misunderstood topic, even my high-school history students know something smells when Pulitzer Prize-winning authors and others write books that highlight Lincoln's "kindness, empathy, generosity, and humility," then ignore or justify his jailing tens of thousands of Northern citizens, and his "total war" campaign against the civilian population of the South, which destroyed roughly half of all their property, caused thousands of them to die by starvation, sickness, and numerous other causes, and killed one-fourth of their white male population between the ages of 16 and 60.

The renowned political commentator and University of Dallas literature professor M.E. Bradford said before his too-early passing that for Americans to understand the causes, events, and consequences of the War Between the States--and the many contemporary problems stemming from it--the towering idol of Lincoln must first be brought down. I remember my own dear mother, God rest her soul, fondly recalling the two ribboned badges she and her classmates received in Sunday School more than a half-century before, and which they had proudly worn--one of Jesus and one of Lincoln.

No one has more effectively set about Mel Bradford's mandate than Tom DiLorenzo. And the man possesses imposing credentials. He has been a professor of economics for nearly 30 years, the last many of them in the Sellinger School of Business and Management at the prestigious Loyola College in Maryland. Specializing in economic history and political economy, he has authored over a dozen books and around 100 articles in academic journals. He is also widely published in such popular outlets as the Wall Street Journal, Reader's Digest, USA Today, National Review, and Barron's. The Real Lincoln is a bestseller many times over. His latest book is How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold Story of Our Country's History, from the Pilgrims to the Present (Crown Forum/Random House, August 2004).

Since the 2002 release of The Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo has accomplished that rare feat of shoving an issue of enormous significance--yet scarce understanding--into the arenas of both academic and popular discourse. Unquestioning devotees of Lincoln--who still abound in academia, media, and Internet alike--may complain, accuse, marginalize, slander, or bay at the moon, but truth is in the process of being revealed to be on the side of those who believe Lincoln to be quite a different man than the one that has been presented by American historians.

A mountain of primary source documentation is blessedly available, and DiLorenzo's work is awash in it, footnoted every step of the way, with bonus quotes included in recent editions of the multi-printing book that vanquish challenges from his critics. However many or few Americans eventually learn the truth about Abraham Lincoln, that truth is available to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Leaving further discovery to you of the treasures found in The Real Lincoln, I'll close with this dramatic endorsement of DiLorenzo's thesis from Walter E. Williams, the well-known conservative black columnist, and Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University: "The War Between the States settled by force whether states could secede. Once it was established that states cannot secede, the federal government, abetted by a Supreme Court unwilling to hold it to its constitutional restraints, was able to run amok over states' rights, so much so that the protections of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean little or nothing today. Not only did the war lay the foundation for eventual nullification or weakening of basic constitutional protections against central government abuses, but it also laid to rest the great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that 'Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' The Real Lincoln contains irrefutable evidence that a more appropriate title for Abraham Lincoln is not the Great Emancipator, but the Great Centralizer."


*John J. Dwyer*, the history chair at Coram Deo Academy near Dallas, is the author of The War Between the States: America's Uncivil War.

*SOURCE:*
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/prin...x?id=143720372

----------


## Travlyr

*You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time* - Abraham Lincoln

I read this book and was very disappointed. DiLorenzo should rename the book The New Lincoln because the real Abraham Lincoln is not accurately described in The Real Lincoln. 

The book so distorts the truth that it is an insult to the intelligence of historians, an embarrassment to the liberty movement, and a disgrace to Loyola University, as well as, the Mises Institute for implementing poor ethics in writing. Currently, the negative reviews on his book on Amazon.com stand at around 40% and many of them are from historians and other professionals. 

Too many false claims destroy DiLorenzos credibility. Here are a few of them:

DiLorenzo states that the war was not fought to end slavery. While that statement alone is true, it is deceiving. Slavery was the main issue for the Civil War. The Southern slave masters wanted to nationalize slavery and Lincoln did not want slavery expanded. The Confederate Constitution, the 1860 political party platforms, and Southern secession statements make that very clear.DiLorenzo claims that Lincoln was not morally opposed to slavery. Lincoln was indeed morally opposed to the institution of slavery. He was raised in an anti-slavery home, he documented anti-slavery sentiment in the public records in 1836 while a legislator for the State of Illinois, and he held that personal position throughout his entire life. It is fully documented in Lincoln's own words.DiLorenzo claims that Lincoln did not try to emancipate the slaves peacefully. Lincoln had a plan to buy the slaves but it was politically unpopular. The New York Times, _the federal government would buy out Delawares entire slave population. In November 1861 he drafted legislation that he hoped would be introduced in the legislature of Delaware, the smallest of the slave states  and a slave state loyal to the Union_.Economist Thomas J. DiLorenzo would have us believe that Henry Clays American System is the economic system under which we labor today. DiLorenzo does not fool me. While the American System is not ancap friendly, it is nothing like the international bankers Federal Reserve System.DiLorenzo tries to convince people that Lincoln is responsible for nationalizing the railroads. The truth is that all the political parties called for transcontinental railroads in their 1860 political party platforms. It was very popular with everyone at the time.DiLorenzo would have us believe that Lincoln was evil for suspending habeas corpus during times of war, yet Jefferson Davis gets a pass for suspending habeas corpus in the South.DiLorenzo tries to convince us that Lincoln was an evil white supremacist racist for supporting African colonization, yet Thomas Jefferson supported it and gets a pass on that.DiLorenzo wants us to believe that Lincoln is responsible for Reconstruction after he died even though Lincoln vetoed the radical Republican reconstruction bill Wade-Davis Bill before he was killed. Lincoln vetoed the legislation because he said it was too radical and he was hated for it.

And there are plenty more distortions of the truth in DiLorenzos The New Lincoln. DiLorenzo does not fool me. We have the truth machine at our fingertips.

Bottom line: Abraham Lincoln did not start the Civil War and he did free the negro slaves. It is a bit disturbing that the liberty movement defends the slave masters attempt to nationalize African negro slavery in America.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Good book.  I own it.  Full of well-documented truth.  Opposed vehemently by the Lincoln Cult.  See also his follow-up Lincoln Unmasked.

----------

