Questions and Answers
with Tom DiLorenzo
Q.
I found your portrait of Abraham Lincoln interesting, if not
disturbing. It doesn't help to ask, "Why weren't we taught this
in school?" Obviously, the textbook writers didn't hold to these
ideas. Instead, can you help us understand why the version of
history we were taught wasn't challenged earlier before it became
fact in our collective mind, or was it?
A.
We shouldn't expect the government-run schools to teach very much other
than the glories of all its conquests and crusades. Since most of us
(including myself) attended public school, we've all been taught a
politically correct version of the history of the U.S. government, including
the War between the States. I have had some emails from people who have told
me of teachers they had in high school who had studied history in college and
who basically agreed with my interpretation of Lincoln and the War. So it's
not as though no one was taught anything but government propaganda. The old
saying that "In war, the victors always write the history" is certainly true.
I've also had people write me that 30 or 40 years ago the things I write
about were widely discussed in university history classes on the topic.
Evidence of this is that the book, The Civil War and Reconstruction by James
Randall and David Donald, which was widely used as a textbook in the 60s,
contains much of the information that is in my book. The newer textbooks
have been whitewashed by comparison.
Q.
Your book cites many examples of Lincoln's abuse of power,
even quoting Lincoln supporters as accepting his being characterized
as a dictator, albeit a "benevolent" one. You explain how Lincoln
squelched northern opposition to his war policies by abandoning the
writ of habeas corpus and illegally arresting vocal opponents. If so, why,
after his death, did the North protect his reputation? With his assassination
they were no longer in jeopardy, and the damage was done; power was
centralized in Washington and the Southern states had been held in the
Union by force. What advantage did those he had wronged realize by
denying his constitutional abuses?
A.
As the economist Murray Rothbard once pointed out, all government power
ultimately rests on a substantial portion of the population believing in the
ideas that motivate the regime in power, whether it's a king, a dictator, or
a democracy. Even the Russian communists couldn't control things once it
became so apparent to the Russian people that communism was a fraudulent
institution.
So, even though the Republicans had a monopoly of political power for many
years after the war, they nevertheless had to construct a false image of what
Joe Sobran calls "the fantasy Lincoln" to provide an ideology in support of
their political power. Their real purpose was the crudest form of patronage
politics, which is not very attractive, so they needed something more
glorious sounding. In fact, all government power depends on a series of
myths about its alleged glories and successes.
Q.
We were still a democracy. It would seem that those in power after
the war would be afraid of the possibility of these broadened powers eventually
falling into the hands of those who opposed them politically. Did you find
evidence that this was ever a concern?
A Politicians are all inherently short-sighted, with their eyes always on
the next election, but not much further. I would think that most of the
Reconstruction era Republicans figured that they might, at best, have a 20
year political career ahead of them, and that there was little chance that
the Democrats would turn the tables on them in that time.
Q.
Surely, those on both sides of the Lincoln debate can agree that slavery was an
inhumane institution. It would seem that any acknowledgement that many, if
not the majority, of Confederate and Union soldiers were fighting over tariffs
and the direction of our young government--rather than slavery--could only help to
facilitate healing in the continuing dialogue between the races. Do you foresee a
time when these documented lessons of history will both receive equal attention
in our text-books?
A.
There is already a large change taking place in textbooks in many fields,
thanks to the home schooling movement. Not only that, but so many parents
who are dissatisfied with what their children are being taught in school have
taken it upon themselves to purchase supplementary books and materials to
educate their own children with, even if they are not full-time home
schoolers. The internet also changes everything. All of my students at
Loyola College, for example, use the internet prolifically in their research
and study. This allows them to bypass a lot of the "filters" that the
establishment sets up with regard to "acceptable" history and other subjects.
A short bio on Mr. Tom DiLorenzo, author of "The REAL LINCOLN":
Mr. DiLorenzo earned his Ph.D. in economics at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute in 1979. He is currently a professor of economics at Loyola College in
Maryland and has previously taught at George Mason University, State
University of New York at Buffalo, Washington University in St. Louis, and
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He is the author or co-author of
eleven books and more than 70 articles in academic economics journals and
have also written in more popular outlets such as the Wall Street Journal,
Barron's, Readers Digest, the Washington Post, and many other newspapers and
magazines.
  
|
Facebook 
Blog
