Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland. He is also a member of the senior faculty of the Mises Institute. DiLorenzo has also written Lincoln Unmasked; How Capitalism Saved America; and Hamilton 's Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution — and What It Means for Americans Today. So DiLorenzo is a well known writer and an economics professor who is highly educated and qualified to write on the economic positions of the civil war. The purpose of this book The Real Lincoln is to prove that a lot of the good credited to Lincoln is merely “myth.”(DiLorenzo 1) The Author Thomas J. DiLorenzo attempts to do this by writing of Lincoln’s motives based upon quotes from Lincoln’s speeches and …show more content…
DiLorenzo was very successful in writing this book, Alexander Marriott states that he “reached a relatively wide audience of libertarians and conservatives.”(Marriott) DiLorenzo is very convincing in his book “The Real Lincoln” because of the many quotes and questions he presents to his audience. By persuading his readers to question all their formal beliefs of Lincoln he gets them to think Lincoln might be this monster that he portrays him to be. Lincoln probably was not a saint like many have made him out to be but he was still the man who demolished slavery and held the United States together during a tough period. By making such a historical figure look like a freud many refuted him, one article by Ken Masugi tells of how DiLorenzo misused quotes and made people believe they meant something by it that they did not. Masugi states DiLorenzo “frequently distorts the meaning of the primary sources he cites, Lincoln most of all.”(Masugi) Masugi then gives examples of how Dilorenzo misused quotes in his book. DiLorenzo’s book had strengths such as its persuasiveness, but also had weaknesses like his misuse of primary sources, and not only diminishing a few of Lincoln’s accomplishments but continuing by degrading his who he was as a
Williams portrays Lincoln in a very positive light, allowing the reader to realize the greatness of Lincoln, in his compassion, strategy, statesmanship and lack of ego. Williams has provided numerous instances wherein he provides ample support to his arguments and facts. In spite of the unnecessary detail and verbosity that Williams sometimes uses, there is no doubt that this book is a remarkable insight into Lincoln’s persona.
The American Civil War not only proved to be the country’s deadliest war but also precipitated one of the greatest constitutional crises in the history of the United States. President Lincoln is revered by many Americans today as a man of great moral principle who was responsible for both preventing the Union’s dissolution as well as helping to trigger the movement to abolish slavery. In retrospect, modern historians find it difficult to question the legitimacy of Lincoln’s actions as President. A more precise review of President Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, however, reveals that many, if not the majority, of his actions were far from legitimate on constitutional and legal grounds. Moreover, his true political motives reveal his
In “The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln,” Phillip Shaw Paludan argues that even though Abraham Lincoln faced unparalleled challenges, Lincoln was America’s greatest president as he preserved the Union and freed the slaves. According to Paludan, Lincoln’s greatness exceeds that of all other American presidents as Lincoln’s presidential service was remarkable in both the obstacles he faced as well as the ways in which he overcame them. Before accepting the distinguished chair in Lincoln studies at the University of Illinois, Springfield, Paludan was a professor of history at the University of Kansas for over 30 years. Paludan has authored several books including Victims: A True Story of the Civil War and A People’s Contest: The Union and Civil
Once a great leader of the United States, transcending past those before and after his time in office, the sixteenth in line of some of the world’s finest, Abraham Lincoln is a man whom people look up to and aspire to become. His face is printed on every penny and five dollar bill that circulates throughout this nation and the world. Honest Abe, as he is known by some for his great deeds of chivalry while managing a country store. Once he noticed he had taken too much change from a woman earlier in the day and instead of just pocketing the extra he closed the store and walked a great length to return the amount (Brooks). His bearded physique is one to be imprinted upon every Americans’ mind bringing thoughts of patriotism and freedom. Lincoln, in pictures is noticed to have an exceptionally long nose. At least that is how the proboscis of a sniffer on his face is portrayed in one such Snickers advertisement. Yes, Honest Abe, in order to bring business has been altered to have a nose resembling that of Pinocchio’s. This elongated snout does serve a purpose along with clever techniques that Snickers uses to attract its audience, alluring them to purchase their product. This advertisement upon analysis registers several effective strategies with the use of pathos, kairos, and the appearance and layout.
James Oakes gave a brilliant and unique perspective to a relationship between two well known historical figures of their time. Abraham Lincoln is a well-admired president for the United States because as Americans culture teaches that he was an honest and well-respected man. He heard about a young African American man, who had high aspirations for his life and the blossoming United States. This man’s name was Frederick Douglass. James Oakes demonstrates how both Douglass and Lincoln worked towards the abolishment of slavery and effectively producing better outcomes within antislavery politics.
Frederick Douglass goes on a journey to help stop slavery. Anti-Slavery movement. February 1818 – February 20, 1895. Frederick Douglass, Anna Murray, African American people, Slaves. To stop the people from being slaves. Frederick Douglass Cuts through the Lincoln Myth to Consider the Man. Frederick Douglass. 1849. Ireland, Britain, United States. Learning to be equal with others. In Frederick Douglass “Cuts through the Lincoln myth to consider the man”; he motivates his/her intended audience during the Anti-Slavery Movement by using the rhetorical devices or tone and imagery.
David Herbert Donald's Lincoln is a biography of our sixteenth President, Abraham Lincoln. At the age of twenty one, he was sure he did not want to be like his father Thomas Lincoln, an uneducated farmer, so he left his fathers house permanently. He had many jobs, learned many lessons, and made both friends and enemies, all which helped him to become one of the greatest presidents of the United States of America during the time the country had split, the Civil War. Thoroughly researched and excellently written, this biography comes alive and shows us what really happened during the early to mid-nineteenth century and it still puts us in the point of view of our former president, using the information and ideas available to him.
During the Abraham Lincoln’s short time as president, he managed not only to save a nation deeply divided and at war with itself, but to solidify the United States of America as a nation dedicated to the progress of civil rights. Years after his death, he was awarded the title of ‘The Great Emancipator.’ In this paper, I will examine many different aspects of Lincoln’s presidency in order to come to a conclusion: whether this title bestowed unto Lincoln was deserved, or not. In order to fully understand Lincoln, it is necessary to understand the motives that drove this man to action. While some of his intentions may not have been for the welfare of slaves, but for the preservation of the Union, the actions still stand. Abraham Lincoln, though motivated by his devotion to his nation, made the first blows against the institution of slavery and rightfully earned his title of ‘The Great Emancipator.’
Abraham Lincoln is widely regarded as “The Great Emancipator,” His legacy as the man who freed the slaves, and the savior of the Union is one that fails to be forgotten. He is thought of as a hero, and one of the few to tackle slavery, a problem that has existed in many parts of the world at one time or another. Although Lincoln is credited with ending slavery, his political motives for confronting this issue and his personal views do not make him worthy of all the recognition he receives; the driven abolitionists and daring slaves deserve a much greater portion of the credit.
In his work, The Real Lincoln, economic historian Thomas J. DiLorenzo tells quite the different tale. Daring to criticize this beloved president, DiLorenzo defends his antithetical statements with several key points: Lincoln was more similar to a dictator than an American President. Arguing that the War Between the States was wholly unconstitutional, DiLorenzo corrects the popular misconception that Lincoln’s war was one of abolition. War was not necessary to end slavery, but it was necessary to fulfill Lincoln’s true agenda – to destroy the most significant check on the powers of the central government: the right of secession.1
Dilorenzo, Thomas J.. The Real Lincoln: a new look at Abraham Lincoln, his agenda, and an unnecessary war. Roseville, Calif: Prima, 2002
Thomas J. DiLorenzo is an economics professor at Loyola College. He has written eleven books, and is very widely published in many magazines and journals. In his book, The Real Lincoln, a twist is placed on the traditional picture of Abraham Lincoln. One of the most famous men in American History, Lincoln was regarded as being many great things, but were these things an accurate depiction of who he really was? As DiLorenzo states, “In the eyes of many Americans, Lincoln remains the most important American political figure in history because the war between the states so fundamentally transformed the nature of American government” (2). Lincoln helped begin a transformation from a small national government to a larger, more centralized one. Perhaps one of the largest misconceptions about Lincoln was his stance on slavery. DiLorenzo goes in depth about this saying, “He (Lincoln) could have ended slavery just as dozens of other countries in the world did during the first sixty years of the nineteenth century, through compensated emancipation, but he never seriously attempted to do so” (9). These two major topics, along with many more, are examined from a different perspective in discovering the man Abraham Lincoln really was.
In Richard Hofstadter’s book “American Political Tradition” he describes twelve biographical portraits of American statesmen, breaking them from longstanding reputations and putting them under scrutiny. Shockingly, among these statesmen is Abraham Lincoln. Hofstadter criticizes both his legacy and his political intentions. Lincoln, a president nationally regarded as a “self-made” man, nicknamed “Honest Abe,” and generally well liked, is not typically heavily criticized (Hofstadter 121). Hofstadter believed his reputation of being “self-made” was simply just a myth that he used to advance his political career and to seize opportunities of advancement (122). Although Hofstadter believes Lincoln’s reputation is not as notable as history says
Abraham Lincoln’s original views on slavery were formed through the way he was raised and the American customs of the period. Throughout Lincoln’s influential years, slavery was a recognized and a legal institution in the United States of America. Even though Lincoln began his career by declaring that he was “anti-slavery,” he was not likely to agree to instant emancipation. However, although Lincoln did not begin as a radical anti-slavery Republican, he eventually issued his Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves and in his last speech, even recommended extending voting to blacks. Although Lincoln’s feeling about blacks and slavery was quite constant over time, the evidence found between his debate with Stephen A. Douglas and his Gettysburg Address, proves that his political position and actions towards slavery have changed profoundly.
The Civil War has been viewed as the unavoidable eruption of a conflict that had been simmering for decades between the industrial North and the agricultural South. Roark et al. (p. 507) speak of the two regions’ respective “labor systems,” which in the eyes of both contemporaries were the most salient evidence of two irreconcilable worldviews. Yet the economies of the two regions were complementary to some extent, in terms of the exchange of goods and capital; the Civil War did not arise because of economic competition between the North and South over markets, for instance. The collision course that led to the Civil War did not have its basis in pure economics as much as in the perceptions of Northerners and Southerners of the economies of the respective regions in political and social terms. The first lens for this was what I call the nation’s ‘charter’—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the documents spelling out the nation’s core ideology. Despite their inconsistencies, they provided a standard against which the treatment and experience of any or all groups of people residing within the United States could be evaluated (Native Americans, however, did not count). Secondly, these documents had installed a form of government that to a significant degree promised representation of each individual citizen. It was understood that this only possible through aggregation, and so population would be a major source of political power in the United States. This is where economics intersected with politics: the economic system of the North encouraged (albeit for the purposes of exploitation) immigration, whereas that of the South did not. Another layer of the influence of economics in politics was that the prosperity of ...