Who is Thomas DiLorenzo arguing with, anyway?

By Michael Lynch

The SCV is kicking off Savannah’s sesquicentennial observances with a talk by Thomas DiLorenzo.  DiLorenzo, of course, is a critic of Lincoln and of the celebratory view of him that’s become woven into the fabric of American memory over the past 150 years.

“While Lincoln is a hero to many,” according to the reporter who wrote the piece linked above, “‘Honest Abe’ is no hero to DiLorenzo. ‘There is the fairytale version of Abraham Lincoln that he was sent from God to free the slaves,’ he said. ‘My book is much more realistic of who he was.'”

Much more realistic than what, exactly?  The notion that Lincoln was sent from God, like some nineteenth-century John the Baptist?  I would certainly hope so.

The article also quotes DiLorenzo as stating that Lincoln “was a real-life politician and not some God-like creature.”  One wonders who, among serious Lincoln researchers, believes that Lincoln was something other than a real-life politician.  Sure, the “apotheosis” of Lincoln was very much a part of the mythology that developed after the war, and one doesn’t have to look very hard to find examples:

But I’m curious as to why any scholar would feel that debunking such romanticized notions is worth his time.  Of course Lincoln “was a real-life politician and not some God-like creature.”  If sentimentalized patriotic myth is the standard of credibility against which DiLorenzo wants us to measure his portrait of Lincoln, then I think the odds are in his favor.

If you want to sift through the debris that’s accumulated after 150 years of myth-making and try to make sense of what it all means, that’s a fine and worthwhile endeavor.  But again, trying to prove that popular mythology is not the same thing as objective truth seems to be aiming rather low.  Merrill Peterson and Barry Schwartz have already done an excellent job of dissecting Lincoln’s place in American memory.  But simply stating that myths are, indeed, just myths seems sort of like reminding us all that Blackbeard didn’t really lead a crew of zombies to capture a live mermaid as he does in the latest Pirates of the Caribbean installment.  Sure, what you’d be saying would be true, but most of us already get it.

Whenever I read a newspaper article about DiLorenzo, I get the feeling that the person who wrote it doesn’t really know with whom or what DiLorenzo is arguing.  Indeed, sometimes I suspect that DiLorenzo himself isn’t really sure who or what he’s trying to engage.  He’s been a vocal critic of Lincoln scholars, using terms such as “court historians” and “the church of Lincoln.”  But rather than engaging the work of serious Lincoln researchers, he seems to spend much of his time either knocking down the straw men of popularized memory, as noted above, or relating common knowledge and then drawing all manner of sinister implications from it:

Before entering politics, Lincoln was a businessman. “Lincoln spent 25 years of his life involved in economic policy debates about money and power,” he said. “He was an advocate of a government-run bank.

“He supported what we today call corporate welfare, including tax subsidies for corporations to build railroads,” DiLorenzo said. “I argue that this was a very important part of why he was elected president and what he did as president.”

That’s all very well and good, but DiLorenzo is hardly the only person “arguing” this.  Indeed, this so commonly known that I don’t think stating it constitutes an “argument” at all.  Like any good Whig of his day, Lincoln was a firm believer in government support for internal improvements and commercial activity.  Anybody who’s read any decent work on nineteenth-century politics or on Lincoln himself should already be aware of this.

At the time he was president, Lincoln was reviled by many people, perhaps the most reviled president of all, DiLorenzo said. “After his death, he was turned into a martyr by the Republican party with the help of the New England clergy,” he said.

“In the northern states, Lincoln shut down over 300 opposition newspapers and suspended habeas corpus,” DiLorenzo said. “He enforced military conscriptions and there were draft riots. It’s not too hard to understand why he was so unpopular. That all changed after his death.”

Again, most of this is common knowledge.  Readers can find discussions of Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, his conscription policies, and the criticisms he received as a result of these measures in any good treatment of the war or of Lincoln’s administration. In fact, Mark Neely devoted an entire book-length study to Lincoln’s curtailment of civil liberties.  (It’s also worth noting that conscription, rioting, and an invasive government weren’t limited to the Union.  The Confederacy also drafted soldiers, provoked civil unrest, and involved itself in various aspects of life to a degree that would have been remarkable in peacetime.)  The only thing that DiLorenzo really seems to be adding to the mix is his polemical tone.

Maybe that’s what he’s after; maybe he’d rather we see him as a political critic, not a historical scholar who’s out to make an original contribution to our understanding of the past.  Perhaps he wants to engage present-day policymakers and voters, rather than historians.  Or perhaps he simply wants to knock down the idealized Lincoln sentiments of popular historical memory (but again, I think that’s a rather modest ambition).

If DiLorenzo wants a hearing from Lincoln scholars, he’ll need to engage the work that these scholars have done, rather than the straw men of historical memory.  Whoever he’s trying to take on, I doubt he’ll run into much disagreement at SCV-sponsored speaking gigs like the one mentioned in the article.

—Michael Lynch graduated from LMU with a degree in history, worked at the Abraham Lincoln Library and Museum as an assistant curator, and now teaches survey-level history courses on campus.  He holds an M.A. in history from the University of Tennessee and blogs about historical topics at pastinthepresent.wordpress.com.

(Both Lincoln images above taken from Wikimedia Commons)


Filed under Lincoln and Memory, Lincoln Historiography

11 responses to “Who is Thomas DiLorenzo arguing with, anyway?

  1. Pingback: Thomas DiLorenzo takes issue with somebody. . .but who, exactly? | Past in the Present

  2. I personally suspect DiLorenzo doesn’t give two shits about Lincoln or the Civil War, except that it’s proved to be a going concern for him, personally. He’s got a calender full of speaking gigs at the Abbeville Institute, the League of the South, and similar organizations, and there’s an eager market for any book outlining the perfidious dishonesty of Lincoln. Not many economics professors have a popular following, as DiLorenzo damn surely does. One wonders if he has groupies, and what they’re like. It’s gotta be a good life for someone in his position.

    As you note in your piece, DiLorenzo is knocking down straw men, slashing his way through positions serious historians don’t actually hold. But that doesn’t matter, because his audience uses those same straw men, too. They’re absolutely convinced that serious, mainstream historians actually think that way, and make such claims. It’s easy to poke holes in a childish myth, much easier than challenging someone like McPherson or Blight or Foner on their actual narrative and analysis. Much more fun, really, to shout, “Lincoln was a racist!” and give high-fives all around.

    What’s amusing — and a little sad — is that DiLorenzo’s followers, who have such contempt for the simplistic hagiography that sometimes surrounds Lincoln, cannot see that same attribute in themselves, when it comes to Lee, Jackson or the Confederacy as a whole. Their sense of history is a Manichean, cartoon world, filled with wicked tyrants (Lincoln), murderous rapists (Sherman’s army), unblemished martyrs (Lee and Jackson), and humble patriots (butternuts generally). No screed about Lincoln is too inflammatory, and no paean to the South is too reverential, to set of these folks’ bullshit warning. It’s a deeply superficial view of the past they choose to hold, and react with predictable anger when it’s challenged.

    Does DiLorenzo see the past that way? I doubt it. He’s not a dumb guy, but he’s definitely smart enough to see where, and with what audience, his own, personal success lies.

    (cross-posted at the Past in the Present)

  3. Pingback: “Generalissimo” Washington? | Past in the Present

  4. Pingback: Non-Historians Writing Biographies - Page 2 - Historum - History Forums

  5. Wow! What a perfect example of complete lack of Critical Thinking! A worthless post. An acolyte of the church I see.

    • Michael Lynch

      I guess I’m having a hard time seeing how a critical response to DiLorenzo’s claims equates to “complete lack of Critical Thinking,” while wholehearted acceptance of his claims doesn’t. Thanks for the comment, anyway.

  6. Pingback: Thomas DiLorenzo’s Rebel Yelling | The Open Tabernacle: Here Comes Everybody

  7. Daniel Balfour

    I think the heartburn for me is that our public schools make “Honest” Abe out to be some hero that should be adorned forever. He was a tyrant and instead of allowing the Sovereign Southern States to leave the Union of Sovereign states he felt it necessary to wage war. Abe was not a hero and should not have this titled bestowed upon him. Tom DiLorenzo, Thomas Woods, Kevin Gutzman, and numerous other authors do a great service to telling the more realistic story, not the “State’s” version of Government is a great savior of man History.

    • Michael Lynch

      Well, the notion that the states were sovereign was one of the points up for debate at the time, which makes it rather difficult to find your argument persuasive. But thanks for commenting anyway.

  8. Tom DiLorenzo is pretty far out on the radical fringe. I wrote a review of his book after a friend recommended it. You can read the review here: http://richardlobb.net/lincoln-and-dilorenzo/

  9. Thomas DiLorenzo, I’m afraid, is one of those authors, all too numerous to mention, who draws conclusions first and plucks evidence suiting his purposes second. He actually did some very solid work on economic policy from a free-market perspective during the Eighties and early Nineties, but since then he’s fancied himself a scholar of American history and has revealed himself to to be way out of his league.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s