The Unreal Lincoln: Loyola College Professor Flunks Out

A war of unkind words has afflicted the WorldNetDaily website over a forthcoming book by Loyola College economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo entitled The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. The controversy began when a friend of DiLorenzo’s, Ilana Mercer, wrote a glowing review of the yet to be released book claiming that, if anything, Lincoln left a legacy of corruption. Richard Ferrier and David Quackenbush of the Declaration Foundation responded to the review (since the book was not released) with all smoke, no gun. DiLorenzo then jumped into the fray with more ad hominem which prompted Quackenbush to write apparent inaccuracies. The debate seemed to have ended with DiLorenzo’s let the ad hominem begin. According to WorldNetDaily, both DiLorenzo and Quackenbush will get one more chance to respond to each other after the book officially releases.

Most of the unkind words happen to come from DiLorenzo who tries to turn the tables claiming that all the ad hominem attacks emanate from his critics. This does not preclude him from bellowing Ferrier and Quackenbush are "irrational," hysterical, ill-mannered, "ideologically blind zealots," etc., at the same time he faults them for personal smears. But that is the preferred tactic when a professor’s peers find his "scholarly research" wanting. Charming indeed.

In the WorldNetDaily correspondence it is evident that DiLorenzo has not considered in a dispassionate manner the meaning of the words that Ferrier and Quackenbush utilize: statesmanship, reason, prudence, natural right, compact. Ferrier and Quackenbush use these words deliberately and purposely; they must be understood before one can comprehend the Founding as well its fulfillment in Lincoln. DiLorenzo glosses over these words as if they had no meaning and at one point irrationally invokes the word reason to discredit his detractors. This is modern rationalism on display. Despite DiLorenzo’s lucubration, I will address those points not covered by Declaration Foundation representatives since they did an ample job of refuting Dilorenzo on that which they chose to address. Since I too have not read the book (though I have requested a review copy from the publisher) I will devote myself to what Dilorenzo wrote in response to his critics. Ultimately, DiLorenzo has not uncovered anything new about Lincoln, but is parroting tired and old arguments which emanated many years ago from Paleo-cons and Libertarians.

As with most scholars who attack Lincoln, they do not base their research on primary sources but on secondary. When they refer to primary material they take it out of context. Let us first consider his use of secondary sources. He invokes Roy Basler (the editor of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln), Pulitzer Prize winning Lincoln biographer David Donald, H.L. Mencken, 1000 northern newspapers, Clinton Rossiter, and finally abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. This list is curious and lends credence to the impression that DiLorenzo has not considered the totality of the evidence, or that he understands the differences between abolitionism and the Founding itself. In other words, DiLorenzo seems to understand Lincoln better than Lincoln understood himself. We ought to be wary of such arrogance.

Against his secondary sources, there are a cloud of witnesses. To name a few: David Potter, Don Fehrenbacher, Lord Charnwood, Charles Kesler, Thomas G. West, and ultimately, the foremost scholar on Lincoln alive today, Harry V. Jaffa. It appears that DiLorenzo has not weighed anything written by Jaffa (or anyone else in the forgoing list) for he answers most every objection DiLorenzo raises, and did so almost 50 years ago.

DiLorenzo claims Lincoln was not sincere about slavery before 1854 and barely mentioned it before that time. He enlists Garrison’s opinion to emphasize that Lincoln was opportunistic and cared not a wit about slavery before 1854. Garrison said that Lincoln had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in him. However, Lord Charnwood (to name but one biographer) describes a different Lincoln when the future president and some friends happened upon a New Orleans slave auction in 1831. Charnwood writes that they viewed that event with disdain and that the people viewed slavery with "horror" in the "home circle." Fehrenbacher is just one scholar who catalogues the fact that the southern opinion of slavery changed from a necessary evil to a positive good. By the 1850s the issue of slavery was a consuming topic not only for Lincoln, but the entire Union. Still, we do not hear from the Loyola professor of any opportunistic slavery proponents. If it was not a consuming topic there would not have been an increase in proslavery literature prior to Lincoln’s entry into national politics. Proslavery William and Mary professor, Thomas Roderick Dew, would not have seen fit to write treatises defending the institution beginning in the 1830s. Similarly, John C. Calhoun declared in the late 1830s-40s that the Founding was defective and that blacks deserved enslavement. This proliferation of pro-slavery opinion is what forced Lincoln to address the subject increasingly as the 1850s approached.

Like the secessionists, abolitionists rejected the Revolution. They believed that there was something inherently racist, so to speak, about the Founding. In principle, both the slave-holding states and the abolitionists thought it defective. In this sense they were on the same side. Garrison faulted Lincoln because he wanted to keep the Union together; Lincoln emphasized that the Union could only last if it adhered to the principles of the Founding. Abolitionists wished to throw out slavery via unconstitutional means and the South wished to secede via the same. Therefore, to invoke Garrison as a witness to Lincoln’s lack of dedication to emancipation is faulty and a stretch at best. It only demonstrates DiLorenzo’s lack of understanding about the era. The abolitionists wanted to effect their ends, republic be damned (and incidentally, this is the major problem with the abolitionist movement for their desire would have done more to entrench slavery). These undercurrents underscore the Lyceum Speech which (contrary to Dilorenzo’s ebullient assertions) gives insight into Lincoln’s political thought, and by extension, slavery, way before 1854. The year was 1838.

Like his 1842 Temperance Address, in the speech before the Young Men’s Lyceum, slavery does not hold the predominant position that it does in his later speeches. According to Jaffa, Lincoln is more concerned with the overarching problem of evil passions of which slavery is but one. In other words, the evils of slavery are no less addressed in these speeches than in his later utterances. The passions, if left to rule, are ultimately destructive:

...if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

The question recurs "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; – let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap – let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; – let it be written in Primmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; – let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars."

The rule of law, not mob law, is the counteracting agent to arbitrary rule. The rule of law in the union points to an abstract truth without which it would mean nothing and would be mutable. Lincoln detected Americans were straying from that abstract truth articulated by the Founders when he said in the same speech that that the Founding principles "are [now] decayed, and crumbled away." America needs to be re-baptized, if you will, in the abstract truth of the Founding. This consistency is evident in the 1859 letter to Henry Pierce:

But soberly, it is now no child's play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation. One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied, and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them ‘glittering generalities’; another bluntly calls them ‘self evident lies’; and still others insidiously argue that they apply only to "superior races."

What is the self-evident truth that Calhoun thought was a lie? All men are created equal. Despite DiLorenzo’s "discovery" that slavery had little to do with the Civil War, primary documents contradict him. Alexander Stephens, the vice-president of the Confederacy, confirmed the predominance of the slavery issue in his Cornerstone speech:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other – though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution – African slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago.

So much for slavery not being the central issue of the war. It is clear from the above speech that southern opinion of the equality of human beings changed. Slavery was not a necessary evil, but was now a positive good that God had sanctioned. DiLorenzo fails to even acknowledge this fact and this makes his entire work questionable. He goes further and falsifies Lincoln’s record in so many instances that this response would be more prolix if I addressed every point he misconstrued. In the face of the preponderance of the evidence, it appears DiLorenzo’s political agenda is clouding his judgment. Ultimately, we have to wonder whether this professor considered everything before he wrote the book, or even if he understands complex political thought. In the end, what was in Lincoln’s heart? Only he and God know. What we do have before us are Lincoln’s words and his actions. Each is consistent with the other provided we keep his words in context. This Dilorenzo refuses to do, and that makes his work apocryphal.

Root is Local Government Editor for Carolina Journal, the monthly newspaper of the John Locke Foundation, also available on-line at CarolinaJournal.com.

Perhaps you should read a little history. As I have noted previously, however, "your question is largely irrelevant. It is the language of the written Constitution that is of critical importance, not the supposed ‘competence’ [or ‘prominence’] of politicians - no matter how much you may prefer the words of politicians to the words of the Constitution..."

I agree that my question had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the constitutional claim that was made by the secessionists, but in view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of young American men died because the issue was decided militarily, I don't know how you can possibly deem irrelevant or unimportant the political decisions that led to the issue being resolved militarily. As I have said before, I believe that competent politicians would not have abandoned all of the existing political and judicial mechanisms that existed for the peaceful resolution of the southern politicians' claim that there existed a constitutional right of secession. I don't think that competent politicians would have attempted to take it upon themselves to unilaterally resolve such an issue except for the most compelling of reasons and I don't think that competent politicians in 1860 would have viewed the eternal preservation of slavery as a compelling reason.

As you know, when we look into the history of these events, we find that many of the most prominent southern politicians (including Stephens) were opposed to "secession." If you can't think of any prominent southern politicians (other than Toombs) who favored the idea, then you've probably helped me all that you can.

Or would you have us believe that the right to keep and bear arms, for example, is somehow dependent upon the 'prominence' of "politicians who worked for and advocated" that right? Hmm?

If you have ever owned a gun, sir, I suppose you already know that the Constitution provides you with very little guidance for how to competently care for and use it. You'll find nothing in the Constitution that forbids competence or common sense.

I agree that my question had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the constitutional claim that was made by the secessionists...

Congratulations.

;>)

...but in view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of young American men died because the issue was decided militarily, I don't know how you can possibly deem irrelevant or unimportant the political decisions that led to the issue being resolved militarily. As I have said before, I believe that competent politicians would not have abandoned all of the existing political and judicial mechanisms that existed for the peaceful resolution of the southern politicians' claim that there existed a constitutional right of secession. I don't think that competent politicians would have attempted to take it upon themselves to unilaterally resolve such an issue except for the most compelling of reasons...

A few points. You are aware, are you not, that Mr. Lincoln refused to negotiate in good faith with the Confederate peace commissioners? And of course you are aware that Mr. Lincoln’s decision to relieve Fort Sumter – a course of action that had resulted in gunfire when attempted three months earlier, and that was contrary to the advice of his military leaders, his cabinet, and his personal advisors – clearly constituted an attempt to ‘unilaterally resolve’ the issue? And no doubt you are aware that Mr. Lincoln chose military action rather than “existing political and judicial mechanisms” to settle the question of secession – even though his own Attorney-General advised him that “no [power to make war against a State] is expressly given [to the federal government by the Constitution]; nor are there any words in the Constitution that imply it...it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would ipso facto be an expulsion of such State from the union.”

In short, you appear to be calling Mr. Lincoln ‘incompetent’...

;>)

...and I don't think that competent politicians in 1860 would have viewed the eternal preservation of slavery as a compelling reason.

And yet again, finding yourself unable to prove secession unconstitutional, you play the ‘slavery card.’ How nice.

LOL! So, you really are suggesting that our constitutional rights are somehow dependent upon the 'prominence' of "politicians who worked for and advocated" those rights. Simply amazing. Tell us, sport: which “prominent” and “competent” politicians have “worked for and advocated” the Third Amendment in the last few “weeks and months?” Hmm? How about the Ninth Amendment? Do those amendments, in your opinion, still exist? Or have they somehow evaporated due to a lack of recent ‘advocacy’ by “prominent” politicians?

Since I’m in a generous mood, I’ll make it easy for you: list for us the “prominent [and] competent” politicians who “worked for and advocated” the Article I, Section 8 congressional power “to declare war” – in the “weeks and months” prior to our ‘war’ in Afghanistan. When you come up with a few noteworthy examples, by all means tell us how the opinions of the politicians in question affect the constitutionality of the congressional power to make war.

How nice. I find your position comparable to that of ‘gun control’ advocates promoting “common sense” weapons bans, as they willfully ignore the constitutional guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And no doubt you would have supported the unconstitutional federal Sedition Act, because the arrest and imprisonment of those who simply criticize the president is a “common sense” interpretation of the phrase “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...”

;>)

And yet again, finding yourself unable to prove secession unconstitutional, you play the ‘slavery card.’

Unfortunately, the "slavery card" was made relevant to the question of the political competency of the southern politicians who favored "secession" by their declarations that the preservation of slavery was their primary objective in "seceding" from the Union. I grant you that it was politically inept of them to select such an utterly distasteful justification for the case that they were making to their contemporaries and to history, but that is exactly what they did and the quality of that choice in and of itself tells me that there was something seriously deficient about the leadership in the pro-"secession" movement. At all times and in all places, an important component of good political leadership is an understanding of the need to persuasively explain and justify to others the use of power. Lincoln understood that principle and used it effectively. And that is why many of you feel the need to mock his eloquence.

But setting aside the morality of slavery and setting aside the truly monumental stupidity of choosing the preservation of slavery as the primary justification for their actions, what in the end did the leaders of the pro-"secession" movement accomplish?

I just don't want to think that the end result would have been viewed by them as an acceptable outcome. I prefer to think that they miscalculated in some way. And I have trouble viewing the outcome as being the result of an excusable miscalculation given that the disastrous outcome that in fact occurred had been foretold by so many of the politicians that southerners themselves believed to be their most capable political leaders.

In the entire history of the western hemisphere, can you think of a more egregious case of political malpractice than the way in which the leaders of the southern pro-"secession" movement handled their political responsibilites?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.