Will “The Real Lincoln” Please Stand Up? – A Book Review

Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s 2002 work peels back the layers of mythology, lore, and revisionist history that have shrouded the 16th president since his assassination.

---

Honest Abe. Statesman. Commander in Chief of the Union Army. The Civil War. Savior of the Union. Emancipation Proclamation. The Gettysburg Address. Abolition. Mt. Rushmore. The Lincoln Memorial.

These are phrases, acts, events, and monuments one might typically associate with President Abraham Lincoln. They evoke an image of a man of great character, of great political and military skill, of one who cared deeply about his fellow human beings, regardless of their skin color. The problem is, when one starts to dig, as DiLorenzo has, the image described in the proceeding sentence is all wrong, profoundly wrong.

The cover to paperback version of "The Real Lincoln" from the Amazon app; the Kindle version, which I read has a different cover.

By referencing his own words and actions, DiLorenzo, whose background is in economics and is a senior faculty member of the Mises Institute, cuts thru the fog of obfuscation surrounding Lincoln to show us the true character of the man. After reading The Real Lincoln, words I would use now to describe him would include racist, bigot, hypocrite, dictator, fascist. After the Introduction in Chapter 1, the author wastes no time in turning the spotlight of the 16th president’s words on him. For example, from an 1858 debate with Douglas, Lincoln replied,

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.

And so it goes, page after page Illustrating in vivid detail how Lincoln, was not only a racist, who cared nothing for saving slaves but wanted to deport them, to more importantly, his overriding goal of preservation of the Union, at all costs, including war. DiLorenzo shows Lincoln to be the ideological heir to Hamilton, thru Henry Clay, who I was not familiar with until reading this, and Lincoln’s devotion to Clay’s “American System,” which was nothing more than a centralized banking mercantile system. As such Lincoln's perspective and mindset was far from that of most of those who fought to escape the same from Great Britain during the Revolutionary War, especially Jefferson. But the ends to which he went to preserve the Union would have surprised even Hamilton.

DiLorenzo digs deep into Constitutional issues, especially secession, which, prior to Lincoln, scholars, lawyers, and commoners recognized as the ultimate check on a tyrannical federal government. The Constitution makes no mention of secession, but neither does it forbade it, nor does the Constitution proclaim that the United States of America is a perpetual union. Imagine being in an abusive relationship, wanting out, then being beaten, and held at gunpoint to remain. This is essentially what occurred with the Civil War. Had Lincoln not been so hell bent on preserving the Union, the South would have seceded peacefully, slavery would have died out peacefully, as it did in the rest of the world, the obscene growth of the government would have been checked, and we all would have been better off as a result.

Toward the end of my article on authority, I quote Lincoln, yet chastise his usage of “reverence for the laws,” for that in itself can cause issues. However, Lincoln had no reverence for law himself, especially the Constitution. By unilateral proclamation, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the North, which clearly only Congress can do (Article I, §9, ¶2). Among other heinous abuses, which included censoring communications and newspapers, election interference, confiscating private property and firearms, and eviscerating the Ninth and Tenth Amendments,

The administration protected itself from criminal prosecution for depriving so many citizens of their constitutional rights by orchestrating the passage of an “indemnity act” in 1863 that placed the president, his cabinet, and the military above the law with regard to unconstitutional and arbitrary arrests. This law was at odds with the centuries-old principle that no man (especially a government official) is above the law.

So, you can’t have it both ways Mr. Lincoln. One cannot proclaim the need for reverence of the law, while at the same time totally ignoring the law. #hypocrisy

What surprised me the most was how prescient the book seemed to be regarding much of what is going on in the country today – from race baiting, censorship, and shredding of Constitutional rights and liberties. But DiLorenzo is not clairvoyant, he only accurately described what Lincoln, those under his command, and who followed him said and did.

As I’ve stated many times on social media, “Study the history to facilitate that #CranialRectalExtraction.” Be prepared to have your illusions of the omnipotent figure who stares down from his throne inside his temple at the west end of a reflecting pool shattered. I have been saying for years, with only a superficial knowledge of the Civil War, but a somewhat deeper understanding of the Constitution and the Republic’s founding, that the war was never about slavery, which would have ended as an economic institution by the end of the 19th century, and that Lincoln did far more to exponentially accelerate the growth of the federal government than any prior to FDR. Turns out, I was right.

Namaste and thanks for reading folks,

Mark Stansell

June 13, 2021