Thomas J. DiLorenzo is an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland. DiLorenzo is the author of eleven books, and is regularly published in academic journals around the United States. In being so widely renowned as an accredited author, his specialties in economic history and political economy, make DiLorenzo more than qualified to be an expert on the everyday life and history of Abraham Lincoln. DiLorenzo book, The Real Lincoln, dares to probe deep into the life of one of America’s most beloved presidents, and separate the man of legend, from the man of history. In doing so, what is uncovered, puts a realistic twist on who the American public considers the Great Emancipator, but in real life should be considered a “…master politician”
…show more content…
DiLorenzo’s book asks a question that many Americans and historians alike, have taken for granted. Chapter three’s title is Why Not Peaceful Emancipation? In this chapter, DiLorenzo does not answer this question right away, instead he provides insight into the workings of the union army during a “…very effective guerilla warfare campaign was being waged by the Confederates” (33). During this skirmish of the civil war, we are introduced to a Union General by the name of John Fremont, where “in an attempt to deter the guerillas, Fremont issued a proclamation on August 30, 1861, adopting martial law throughout the state and asserting that any persons resisting the occupying Federal army would have their property confiscated and their slaves declared freemen” (33). This impromptu peace deal, not only was not approved by Abraham Lincoln, it was also changed, under his order to nullify “… the emancipation part of the proclamation…” (34). Not only did Abraham Lincoln change John Fremont’s plan to reinstate order and peace, Lincoln also stripped him of his command, and forever solidified that if anyone under the Union flag tries to free a slave, without direct orders from the president, would have the proverbial book thrown at them. This entire chapter could be summed up in one iconic statement saying correctly “that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave” (35). DiLorenzo then backs this statement up with other historical …show more content…
One of his strengths is that every quote and opinion is backed up by various newspaper, and historical references. These points seem to prove without a doubt that Lincoln was as awful as DiLorenzo has portrayed him to be. On the other hand, many people argue that DiLorenzo takes these sources out of context and pieces them together to prove his own point. This argument is backed by Ken Masugi by his own words saying, “He frequently distorts the meaning of the primary sources he cites, Lincoln most of all” (Masugi 2002). Even in this light of distortion, many historians do agree with DiLorenzo’s portrayal of Lincoln. One of these historians would be John Dwyer. Dwyer gives praise to DiLorenzo’s book by saying, “ 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” (Dwyer 2006). Whether historians will ever agree, may never be known. What is agreed upon about Abraham Lincoln is the fact that the history books, only summarize about the greatness of the American way of life during the Civil
DiLorenzo’s book asks a question that many Americans and historians alike, have taken for granted. Chapter three’s title is Why Not Peaceful Emancipation? In this chapter, DiLorenzo does not answer this question right away, instead he provides insight into the workings of the union army during a “…very effective guerilla warfare campaign was being waged by the Confederates” (33). During this skirmish of the civil war, we are introduced to a Union General by the name of John Fremont, where “in an attempt to deter the guerillas, Fremont issued a proclamation on August 30, 1861, adopting martial law throughout the state and asserting that any persons resisting the occupying Federal army would have their property confiscated and their slaves declared freemen” (33). This impromptu peace deal, not only was not approved by Abraham Lincoln, it was also changed, under his order to nullify “… the emancipation part of the proclamation…” (34). Not only did Abraham Lincoln change John Fremont’s plan to reinstate order and peace, Lincoln also stripped him of his command, and forever solidified that if anyone under the Union flag tries to free a slave, without direct orders from the president, would have the proverbial book thrown at them. This entire chapter could be summed up in one iconic statement saying correctly “that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave” (35). DiLorenzo then backs this statement up with other historical …show more content…
One of his strengths is that every quote and opinion is backed up by various newspaper, and historical references. These points seem to prove without a doubt that Lincoln was as awful as DiLorenzo has portrayed him to be. On the other hand, many people argue that DiLorenzo takes these sources out of context and pieces them together to prove his own point. This argument is backed by Ken Masugi by his own words saying, “He frequently distorts the meaning of the primary sources he cites, Lincoln most of all” (Masugi 2002). Even in this light of distortion, many historians do agree with DiLorenzo’s portrayal of Lincoln. One of these historians would be John Dwyer. Dwyer gives praise to DiLorenzo’s book by saying, “ 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” (Dwyer 2006). Whether historians will ever agree, may never be known. What is agreed upon about Abraham Lincoln is the fact that the history books, only summarize about the greatness of the American way of life during the Civil