The Real Lincoln Analysis

Matthew Sadlow
Critique of “The Real Lincoln”
10 /24/14

In the second chapter of The Real Lincoln, author Lorenzo brings up many facts about Lincoln that I had not previously been aware of. Throughout the chapter he addresses Lincoln’s outlook on slavery. In a debate with Senator Stephen Douglas, Lincoln admits that he had no intentions of freeing the slaves. Lincoln says “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two…”(DiLorenzo). Most of the chapter was DiLorenzo explaining just how clear Lincoln made it that he was not for equal rights, even though he did feel slavery was wrong. These two should not be confused with each other. Also, he illustrates
that not all northerners were abolitionists and most treated black badly. They, overall, cared little about the welfare of slaves and treated blacks among them as garbage. Contempt, ridicule and discrimination were some ways they were treated. Violence was rarer but it occasionally happened. DiLorenzo does say that in the end Lincoln acted as his intentions were to free the slaves.
However, Lincoln also was for new housing for free white people. This was land personally reserved for whites. The shut out blacks, in other words they were not allowed in. Alabama was one of these states. This is another example that shows Lincoln was opposed to slavery. In chapter three DiLorenzo examines that Lincoln had no intention of emancipating the slaves. The only way he would willfully do so would be because he was forced to emancipate them. He states multiple times throughout the chapter that, if Lincoln’s true intentions were to free the slaves, that he would have done it peacefully. Like so many other places who once had slavery they emancipated them peacefully through compensation. Lincoln was not a naïve man and he knew this was an option but cared little about slaves. After hearing of Fremont’s proclamation to take the land and free the slaves of anyone who resisted the feral army, Lincoln stripped Fremont of his command. DiLorenzo on page 35 states that any attempt at emancipation from Lincoln was done solely for preserving the Union. On top of that, the famous emancipation proclamation did not actually have any effect. It failed to free a single slave. This is because the only states this proclamation applied to were revel states not federal states. DiLorenzo admits that the proclamation helped Lincoln gain power but that was about all it did. It appeased abolitionists
and attempted to subdue the rebels into submission. The author brings up many great arguments. Bringing up the point of peaceful emancipation definitely raises some eyebrows. If freeing slaves was the main cause then doing so peacefully would be the best option, instead of waging and unnecessary war. Unless of course there was alternative motives, which there were. Lincoln’s main goal was to secure the Union and keep the glue together. Again we see this when he strips Fremont of his command for wanting to free slaves. Lincoln would not have this. If Lincoln not supporting emancipation wasn’t good enough, chapter 4 looks at how Lincoln was in favor of banks and tariff tax. The beginning of the chapter makes this very clear by starting off with a quote from Lincoln himself, which serves as hard evidence. Abe says “My policies are short and sweet like a young women’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank…in favor of the internal improvements systems and a high protective tariff”(54). This helps make the connection of Lincoln being a part of the Whig party. Whigs believed in protectionism, government control of money, supply through national banking system and government subsidies for railroads, shipping and canal building businesses. Finally, according to DiLorenzo in 1859 Lincoln came out as being a part of the Whig party. Historians have constantly compared Lincoln to Henry Clay because of what they both believed. Just as Lincoln was, Clay supported protectionism and especially nationalized banking. If that wasn’t enough, we all know Abe never wanted to free slave and even thought the inferior. Clay was also like this but now for African Americans. Clay though the Indians as inferior. With that it is apparent that Lincoln wanted to adopt all of Clay’s views. Since he achieved high political power he could represent his ideals and, what’s worse, he could carry them out. All in all it is clear that Lincoln was a Whig supporter. The fact that he never tried to hide his “flaws” shows how confident he was as a political leader. His attitude towards blacks reflect Clays views on Indians. I do not support government control of money. It’s a system that is guaranteed to fail in the long run. People should be in control of their own money. Im not saying it’s the best system but it last longer and is fairer than government money control. If Lincoln wasn’t concerned with freeing slaves what was he concerned with. His main concern was to keep the union together. Chapter 5 outlines secession. If we rewind we know that, on order to preserve the Union, Lincoln had to stop the south from succeeding. However, succession is a fundamental right, so too is the people’s right to rise against a corrupt government. Lincoln himself says that it is a people’s right to shred there government (85). Founding fathers even supported the right of succession.
Thomas Jefferson in particular showed is support for succession. Lincolns force used to secure the Union was unacceptable and even Alexander Hamilton opposed the way Abe went about things. Every state had the right to secede is what DiLorenzo was trying to get at. Everyone but Lincoln appeared to understand this. Lincoln was so fueled by keeping the Union together he lost sight of what is right. If that wasn’t bad, Lincoln himself even said himself that states have the right to secede. I feel that Lincoln had the right intentions in mind but went about it in the wrong way. Everyone knows “Abe never told a lie” but he was sure a hypocrite. It surprises me that even though everyone said the south had a right to secede that he would still wage a war over it. Even more, people let him do this. Now, im not saying Lincoln is a bad man, but his methods of doing some things were unorthodox. He was however a great president but like all great presidents he made some
mistakes. In chapter 6 Dilorenzo outlines how Lincoln was indeed a dictator and not fair and just as everyone thinks he is. He did many unconstitutional things that are outlined b Dilorenzo. Forst off he invaded the south without first getting permission from congress. In order to do anything as president, your orders need to pass congress for approval. Without doing so violates the constitution and plays into his own power, causing dictatorship. He also suspended the writ of habeas corpus, the right to stand a fair trial. This was done throughout his presidency. Lincoln unjustly imprisoned thousands of people, and not just slaves. Lincoln went as far as imprisoning northern citizens which he was fighting for. Also, he imprisoned many newspaper publishers. If you said anything bad about Lincoln you would be imprisoned. This sounds oddly like North Korea and how if you say anything bad about the leader meant punishment. This sounds oddly enough like a dictatorship. The power hungry Lincoln didn’t stop there however. He also censored telegraphs, created new states without consent of the people living there, and had federal troops toy with the election (132). With all this power Lincoln could definitely be considered a dictator. In order to justify his own actions Lincoln connected dots with invisible lines. He said that he “discovered” presidential power in the constitution that no one ever saw before. He must have some good eyesight, because nobody knows where he was looking to find these things. He went against the constitution and in turn against his oath to the country. But he did it in order to preserve the union, so would it still be together today if he hadn’t don’t these things? Even saying Lincoln never told a lie is a vast misunderstanding. Dilorenzo talks about his plight with the Sioux Indians. The Sioux gave Lincoln land for payment. However, the payment never came. Then many were executed when they asked about their money. Not a very fair and just leader to me. Henry Hellek, was an author of international war. Dilorenzo outlines a quote from him. It is said that “noncombatants should be spared, as far as possible” (175). Why would Dilorenzo outline this quote from Hellek? It is because Lincoln cared little for civilian casualties. It seemed that Lincoln was trying to do good by passing the Lieber law. This law, in all actuality, seemed like a very sincere law. It was just executed very poorly on Lincolns generals parts. The law states that military commanders could ignore Hellek’s code if the situation seemed necessary and only if the general deems it to be okay. At first glance this law seems very admirable. But how does this fall back to Lincoln if it was his generals who were waging war on civilians. Dilorenzo has the answer. He says that because so many of Lincolns generals, including General Sherman, were taking these irrational actions that a man of higher power had to be directing them. Not all generals can be bad, unless given orders. To offer proof that this was indeed happening Dilorenzo adds words from Colonel Beatty which state “Every time a telegraph wire was cut we would burn a house; every time a train was fired upon we would hang a man; and me would continue to do so until every house was burned and everyman hanged between Decature and Bridgeport” (178). These actions would not be tolerated, even in today’s world. Do I believe what Lincoln did was just, no. Most of civilian deaths were due to this law Lincoln passed. Many live could have been spared. Women and children are not going to be responsible for firing upon a train or cutting a telegraph wire, so why punish them for these deeds. Maybe Lincoln wanted to lure the perpetrators out with violence amongst the people. Whatever his reasons I hope they are good ones. Dilorenzo brings up many good points in his book The Real Lincoln. Personally I believe most of the stuff that he brings up. He has so much proof on all of the topics covered that its hard to view it any other way. From historians to speeches from many different individuals tell a tale of Lincoln not heard before. Even with all this controversy with Lincoln, I still view him as a good president. He did what he thought was necessary to keep this country intact. Whether I agree with what he did or not is irrelevant. Lives may have been lost in the war but ir preserved the Union. I do think it could have been done a lot better with fewer casualties but what is done is done and things turned out to be fine in the end.

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. Roseville, CA: Prima, 2002. Print.