When viewed upon the scale of history, not really. It is an inescapable truth of history that the presidency and federal government's power was strengthened in the war as that was the war's very nature - a fight between the actions of several states and those still in the union, consolidated under the name of the federal government. As for the assertion that DiLorenzo's statement is unsupported, this writer certainly had to have been aware that he was on only the second page of the book. Was not that which followed DiLorenzo's argument for the assertion?
Page 3: "Lincoln thought of himself as the heir to the Hamiltonian political tradition" This is another unsupported assertion
Not so for the same reasons explained above.
and I conducted a brief experiment to see if Lincoln's own words would back it up. I went to the Lincoln Papers online site and did a simple search on the word "Hamilton." If DiLorenzo's assertion were valid, it seems clear to me that I ought to get a lot of hits; I got a grand total of 26 hits, the first three of which were not to Alexander Hamilton! In fact, looking through the citations, only five of them referred to Alexander Hamilton; the rest were to locations named Hamilton or to Union officers named Hamilton. It seems to me that this is a sparse degree of citation for someone who thought of himself as Hamilton's "heir."
The experiment attempted by this author is both silly and inconclusive. Aside from assuming that Lincoln's collected works include everything Lincoln ever said, wrote, or did (Lincoln himself admitted that the overwhelming majority of his political career's speeches, specifically the early ones, were never on any sort of written record). It does not. One can however follow the Hamiltonian tradition to Lincoln, and DiLorenzo attempts to do so throughout his book. Recall that the Hamiltonian tradition was embodied in the Federalist Party, which dissolved into the era of Monroe before reemerging in a new political party. The Hamiltonian tradition was carried by this new party, the Whigs. Lincoln was indisputably a Whig with very strong Whig political beliefs. He was an active Whig political organizer involved heavily in its party machinery, campaigned as a surrogate for Whig presidential candidates, and held office as a Whig. Even after the Whigs dissolved and Republicans emerged nominating him for president, Lincoln referenced his Whig values. So politically speaking, Lincoln was every bit of the Hamiltonian tradition, a leader of the political heir to the Hamiltonian federalist party, and a leader of that heir's heir, the Republican Party.
Page 4: "It is very likely that most Americans, if they had been given the opportunity, would have gladly supported compensated emancipation as a means of ending slavery " With this unsupported assertion
Same as above. This author seems to be fighting a war with the book's introduction due to the fact that DiLorenzo makes his arguments not in the introduction, but in the rest of the book where they are properly suited.
Page 5: "This doctrine [secession] was even taught to the cadets at West Point, including almost all of the top military commanders on both sides of the conflict" This, of course, is the William Rawle story, which has been soundly discredited in many places. Rawle's book on the Constitution was used for only a single year at West Point, perhaps two, before being supplanted by another. Unless we count Samuel Heintzleman as one of the "top military commanders," then DiLorenzo's statement is simply false.
I concede I am not familiar enough with the supposed discrediting of this theory to discuss it, though I do know that it is indisputable at least some acknowledgment of secession as constitutional through various sources was taught at some point to cadets at the military academy. The degree and influence I suppose is a matter of debate, but that is for another time.
Page 6: "Chapter 7 details how Lincoln abandoned the generally accepted rules of war, which had just been codified by the Geneva Convention of 1863." I can find no reference to a Geneva Convention of 1863. The Avalon Project website at Yale mentions an 1864 Geneva Convention, but this was confined in scope to the treatment of the wounded.
The author is incorrect. What was collectively known as the Geneva convention began in 1863 and expanded its scope through 1864. There is a discussion of some of these dates here. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/EUgeneva.htm
It appears to have escaped DiLorenzo's radar screen that Halleck's book was not published until 1861, and so could not have informed any of the "top commanders" in either army.
How so? The bulk of the war was fought after 1861, so that date does not in any reasonable way preclude the familiarity of commanders with the book. Further, that author's questioning of whether or not DiLorenzo knew the publication date to have been 1861 is fraudulent, as DiLorenzo gave exactly that date in his September 2001 column - http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo8.html
Page 7: "Chapter 9 describes Lincoln's economic legacy: the realization of Henry Clay's American System. Many (primarily) Southern statesmen had opposed this system for decades" This gets to the heart of DiLorenzo's thesis. His beef is less with Lincoln than with Clay and Clay's ideas.
To the contrary. "I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views." - Abraham Lincoln, October 11, 1859
Page 8: "Lincoln's war created the 'military-industrial complex' some ninety years before President Eisenhower coined the phrase." This may win a prize as the most outlandish exaggeration in the chapter.
How so and in whose opinion? A decent argument could be made that it traces back to the war. It also seems that this author has violated his own chief complaint, as he does not substantiate his characterization of that quote as outlandish.
Chapter 2 is concerned with "Lincoln's Opposition to Racial Equality," but a more accurate title would be "Northern Racism." No one denies that racism (which is a modern term, by the way) existed in the North at the time of Lincoln's election, but DiLorenzo proceeds as though this fact were the second book of Revelation.
Actually, popular american mythology denies this fact and that mythology has a significant following. If you doubt me, just ask any modern liberal democrat and some republicans. That's certainly more than just "no one."
Page 15: "In twenty-three years of litigation [Lincoln] never defended a runaway slave, but he did defend a slaveowner." The reference to defending a slaveowner is to the notorious Matson case, in which Lincoln represented (as an assistant) a Kentuckian who owned land in Illinois which he worked with the help of some slaves he brought over from Kentucky for part of the year. There is no denying that this case causes some embarassment to those who hold Lincoln in high esteem, but the fact is that Lincoln did defend a black woman, Nance, who was accused of being a slave. While DiLorenzo's assertion, "he never defended a runaway slave," may be, strictly speaking, true, to omit the Nance case in this discussion is shoddy scholarship, especially since it was the precedent of the Nance case which the court used in deciding the Matson case.
First, this author does not dispute the existence of the Matson case. Second, he concedes that Nance was not a runaway slave. In short, he has proven nothing inaccurate about DiLorenzo and only complains that DiLorenzo did not include a loosely related detail that does not contradict any of his assertions.
Page 17: "Some ten years later, December 1, 1862, in a message to Congress, Lincoln reiterated his earlier assertions: 'I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization.'" DiLorenzo makes a big issue of Lincoln's support for colonization, but he overlooks the fact that it disappears from Lincoln's agenda after this 1862 message to Congress. Most authors accept that this represents a change of heart on Lincoln's part. DiLorenzo simply ignores it.
Not really. It is indisputable that Lincoln favored colonization for the vast majority of his political career. That is DiLorenzo's point. If he had a change of heart, then all for the better. Lincoln had many changes of heart. But DiLorenzo's book was never about Lincoln's changes of heart. It was about Lincoln's politics.
(He also ignores Frederick Douglass's comments on Lincoln's lack of racial prejudice.)
Since when was DiLorenzo or any author obligated to include every statement of praise about Lincoln given by a prominent contemporary? His ommission cannot therefore be faulted.
Page 24: "The more or less 'official' interpretation of the cause of the War between the States, as described in *The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents*, by historian William A. Degregorio, asserts that the slavery issue 'pitted abolitionists in the North who viewed it as a moral evil to be eradicated everywhere as soon as practiable against southern extremists who fostered the spread of slavery into the territories.'" I, for one, have never heard of William A. Degregorio nor *The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents*, and I would think that many better sources would exist for an "official" interpretation.
The fact that this particular author has never heard of one of DiLorenzo's sources is not to be faulted to DiLorenzo, yet that is exactly what this author tries to do.
This is nothing more than a strawman, and a weak one at that. No serious scholar takes this view of the Civil War, and while I do grant that many ordinary citizens might, that is an indictment of history education, not of Lincoln's record.
I believe the author is mistaken in his characterization, as it seems that DiLorenzo's work itself seeks to combat the popular myth of Lincoln as the average citizen "knows" it.
Page 25: "No abolitionist was ever elected to any major political office in any Northern state." Thaddeus Stevens, Salmon Chase, and Charles Sumner would be suprised to read this.
Charles Sumner was not elected to his political office - senators were appointed at the time by the state legislatures. Chase was selected by the Ohio legislature as senator in 1860 as well. Stevens was a single congressman. Even then, it is improper to categorize any of these three as abolitionists. They were radical republicans. Abolitionists were pamphleteers like Garrison and Spooner. They aligned from time to time with radical republicans, but were not the same thing.
Page 26: "[Lincoln] was thus the North's candidate in the election..." Stephen A. Douglas would have been surprised to read this.
Politically, Lincoln was chosen by the northern states. Douglas was another northerner, but lost to Lincoln across the north. That is why Stephen Douglas was not elected president.
In short and in summary, every one of this author's complaints listed above with DiLorenzo is weak. Many are completely erronious, others are intentionally misleading, and all are generally frivolous and petty.
This is not the best history. It looks like a pack of tricks ideologues play with the past. The Federalist party collapsed, leaving little behind, save in New England. There weren't enough Federalists left to build a new party out of.
The Republicans (or Democratic Republicans) dominated the scene. Both the National Republican and Democrats grew out of the Republican party. The Whigs were the successor to the National Republicans. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Clay, Jackson and J.Q. Adams were all members of that Republican or Democratic Republican party in the "Era of Good Feeling."
Madison accepted protective tariffs and a national bank, as did Monroe. Both allowed that some forms of internal improvements might be built and paid for by the federal government. If Jefferson had any objections, he kept most of them to himself. The Federalist "monocrats" had been defeated and the old objections didn't apply. There were some radical "old Republicans" like John Taylor and John Randolph who echoed older anti-federalist and radical decentralist themes, but the bulk of Republicans went with Madison and Monroe and accepted what might have been thought "Hamiltonian" policies.
Now maybe at some deep metaphysical level the Whigs were the decendants of Hamilton, but Clay, Lincoln and other Western Whigs probably would not have seen it that way. The link to the Founders, not to Hamiltonians or Jeffersonians, was paramount, but Clay's Republican antecedents could not be ignored. Such continuities as may have existed with Federalism were at the class or regional level, not at that of political parties. New England Whigs might feel ties to their own Federalist past, but the Whigs of Kentucky or Illinois certainly wouldn't define themselves as Hamiltonian or as heirs of the Federalist party. Clay had sound Republican precedents for his policies. Henry Clay had served as a Republican in Congress under Madison and Monroe. Lincoln supported Clay and viewed him as a connection to the founders -- to the founders as a whole, not to some Hamiltonian tradition.
Does it matter? Viewing history as a clash between Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians is polarizing. Everything and everyone can be lined up on one side or the other. Flyover history ignores the details and nuances, like the support of Jefferson's successors for "Hamiltonian" policies.
What the actual political history leading up to Lincoln reveals is that things were more fluid and mixed. People changed their views and compromised. Passions ran high at times but it wasn't an all or nothing struggle between statism and libertarianism.
Ideal types like the Hamilton and Jefferson of 1791 were at the extremes. Most of those in political life were in between the two. Neither extreme Hamiltonianism and extreme Jeffersonianism satisfied most Americans. Rather than cling to theories, people tested theory against reality and discarded theories if they didn't fit or work.
I suppose on some metahistorical level the war can be seen as a conflict between Hamiltonianism and Jeffersonianism, but that's only because the war and the conflicts that preceded it brought the extremes out in Americans.
In any event, it's probably healthy if those who regard Lincoln as the great deviation consider that perhaps their views may be the deviant ones.