- Mises.org: Your book The Real Lincoln came out, it was
a huge seller, and then this mad controversy broke loose.
-
- DiLorenzo: The controversy began even before the book
came out. Illana Mercer of WorldNet Daily wrote a column about the book,
praising it to the skies. That pleased me very much. But then the critics
started blasting away, without ever having seen the book. One even recommended
that people not read my book. They were extremely crude, denouncing Illanaís
ìcomprehensive ignorance.î These Lincoln people were outraged
that there was a book out that was less-than hagiographic toward the great
man.
-
- Once the book appeared, the critics became ever more
vehement. But instead of addressing my argument and evidence, they seized
on a couple of errors in the book that were carried over from errors in
secondary sources. Both of these are changed in the new printing. These
errors shouldnít have been there but they were not by any means
essential to the thesis.
-
- Mises.org: One of the misquotations concerns Lincolnís
view of racial equality.
-
- DiLorenzo: Yes, I ran across it among the 60 or so Lincoln
books in my office, and it sounded quintessentially Lincolnian. Lincoln
is on record opposing equality for blacks, and was a lifetime proponent
recolonizing slaves back to Africa. This is beyond dispute, even if the
Lincoln partisans donít like to talk about it.
-
- In the passage I quoted, he was making fun of the idea
of racial equality. It turned out that the context of this quote, among
so many making essentially the same point, had Lincoln attributing the
view to someone else.
-
- The misattribution made no difference to the thesis,
but these critics began writing 20-page essays flaming me for this, suggesting
I had done this deliberately. It is all disingenuous because Lincoln is
on record time after time rejecting the idea of racial equality. But whenever
anyone brings this up, the Lincoln partisans go to the extreme to smear
the bearer of bad news. One critic called me both a Marxist and a libertarian,
and probably a member of the White Citizens Council.
-
- Meanwhile, my missteps pale in comparison with the inaccuracies
that my critics have introduced. David Quackenbush, for example, claims
that there is only one quote from Lincoln in my entire book. This is just
a kooky assertion that is easy to disprove in about 15 seconds of flipping
through my book.
-
- Mises.org: And yet, as you say, none of this touches
on your central thesis.
-
- DiLorenzo: Right, and my thesis is that Lincoln devoted
twenty-eight years of his life to an economic agenda of mercantilist high
tariffs, pork in the form of internal improvements, and the promotion of
a central bank. The basic strategy of this economic agenda was to allow
the Republican Party to buy votes from protectionist manufacturers, mining
and timber companies that wanted cheap federal land, subsidy-seeking railroad
companies, and white laborers who did not want competition from freed blacks
or slaves.
-
- Mises.org: You have written that Lincoln was the political
son of Alexander Hamilton.
-
- DiLorenzo: Yes, the founding father who represented the
mercantilist, big-government brand of Americanism in contrast to the Jeffersonian
spirit of freedom. The long-time debate between Jefferson and Hamilton
was settled at gunpoint. Thatís what the War for Southern Independence
was all about.
-
- After the election and just before Lincolnís inauguration,
the House passed the Morrill tariff which elevated the rate to 47.06 percent--an
extortionist rate. Remember that the tariff was the primary source of federal
revenue in those days and the South, which wanted free trade with the world,
was paying 80 percent of the total federal revenue, according to Frank
Taussigís authoritative history.
-
- Lincolnís inaugural address underscored the point
that he wasnít going to back down against demands from the South
that tariffs be lowered, as Andrew Jackson had done. Lincoln said it was
his duty to ìcollect the duties and imposts and so long as the South
paid, ìthere will be no invasion.î Northern newspapers were
calling for a bombardment of Southern ports, a first strike to prevent
the threat that the South would ignore the new tariffs and institute free
trade.
-
- You cannot understand Lincolnís place in the constellation
of American history without understanding the economics of mercantilism
and the need for government coercion to enforce it. To show this, I quote
David Donald, the Pulitzer Prize winning historian, as saying that this
was the reason that Lincoln was elected. Contemporary political figures
such as Republican Senator John Sherman went on record to say that as well.
-
- Mises.org: Then there are all the Constitutional issues
that arise during the war.
-
- DiLorenzo: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, he jailed
political opponents and newspapers writers, and violated the letter and
spirit of the Constitution at every turn. I document all this, as does
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. It is amazing how the Lincoln cartel goes to such
lengths to justify these activities. The difference with my book is not
so much in the facts themselves, though I bring out many that Lincoln partisans
would rather forget, but that I donít go to enormous lengths to
provided twisted rationales for Lincolnís behavior.
-
- Hermann Belz, for example, says that Lincoln was not
a dictator because he allowed the election of 1864 to take place. But Belz
doesnít mention how Lincoln rigged this election. Federal soldiers
had the opposition jailed. His confiscation acts covered everyone who would
dare dissent from the Lincoln line. He patrolled the voting booths to kick
out Democrat voters. He also orchestrated the secession of West Virginia
just to gain a few electoral votes. In short, this was Mugabe-style democracy.
-
- Mises.org: Were you previously aware that the Lincoln
partisans were so vehement?
-
- DiLorenzo: What you have here are several very well-funded
neoconservative foundations that are using Lincoln mythology to advance
their current political agenda of strong national and executive power.
In my debate with Harry Jaffa recently, one of the last things he said,
which drew a lot of boos from the audience, was that September 11 proves
that we need a strong central government. This is very revealing. Essentially,
these neoconservatives want big government just like Lincoln did.
-
- So here I am, this one professor at a liberal arts college
and I have these dozens of people on the payroll of foundations ganging
up to call me names and otherwise smearing anyone who questions the mythology
of Lincoln as a great liberator. Iíve noticed over the years that
anytime anyone questions this they swing into action. But I suppose Iíve
been taken aback at their tone and tactics.
-
- Mises.org: When the Soviet Union was breaking up, didnít
Gorbachev cite the Lincoln precedent to justify that empire?
-
- DiLorenzo: Certainly, which shows that he knew something
about the role that Lincoln played. The Baltic states wanted to secede,
so Gorbachev said that by trying to prevent it, he was doing no more or
less than Lincoln did. In fact, despots ever since Lincolnís time
have cited his actions as a moral precedent to crack down on political
dissenters. All the great tyrants of the 20th century were consolidationists,
including Adolph Hitler.
-
- Mises.org: What did Hitler have to say about the American
Civil War?
-
- DiLorenzo: During my debate with Jaffa, he cited some
source where Hitler supposedly said that it was too bad that the Confederacy
lost the war. But no one ever heard Hitler say that. And we have Hitlerís
own book, Mein Kampf, which makes a case for the German union in the same
terms that Lincoln made the case for American union.
-
- Hitler writes that ìindividual states of the American
Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own.
For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was
the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states." This
was also Lincolnís view.
-
- Hitler goes on to say: ìCertainly all the states
in the world are moving toward a certain unification in their inner organization.
And in this Germany will be no exception. Today it is an absurdity to speak
of a ëstate sovereigntyí of individual provinces.î And
further: ìIn particular we cannot grant to any individual state
within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty
in point of political power." Finally: "National Socialism as
a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles
on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated
state boundaries.î
-
- Mises.org: It makes sense because centralized government
is essential to central planning.
-
- DiLorenzo: Right, you canít allow people to leave
a coercive union if you have an agenda to impose on an entire country.
In the American context, the tariff system relies on consolidated power.
The Republican platform emphasized the need for corporate welfare and the
tariff was the only way to fund it. You couldnít have states that
refuse to pay. That would make big government impossible.
-
- Decentralized government is essential to individual liberty.
There has to be a check on the centralized state. This is why the American
founders put so much emphasis on federalism and the rights of the individual
political units. Yes, the states can be abusive of liberty, but because
there are many states, you can vote with your feet. Also, the ability to
leave the union provides an out for people when the center becomes tyrannical.
-
- Mises.org: It doesnít seem like libertarians have
been as focused on this point as they might have been.
-
- DiLorenzo: They have been too willing to go along with
the idea of Chief Justice John Marshall, who did defend property rights.
At the same time, he didnít understand the tendency of power, once
again, to be used against property and liberty. St. George Tucker, in his
book A View of the Constitution, said that whenever the federal government
gains the ability to be the judge of its own limits of power, you no longer
have freedom; you have tyranny. Thatís the theme of his book. It
was the theme of the Constitution until Lincoln came along.
-
- In this century, libertarian legal theorists have tended
to look to federal courts as the means to implement a pro-property rights
agenda. They have tended to ignore the ways that the states have checked
the center. One of the few to have understood the dangers of this is Gottfried
Dietze, who clearly lays out why the founders wanted political power to
be decentralized.
-
- Mises.org: How many articles have you written in response
to you critics.
-
- DiLorenzo: Probably 15 or 20, on Lewrockwell.com, WorldNet
Daily, and Mises.org, among other venues. Thank goodness for technology.
It has made it possible to respond to these people on a day-by-day basis.
For this reason, the Lincoln cartel is breaking up. Previously, these people
would write books for university presses, and they would be reviewed by
each other. Their views would be propounded in the classroom, where the
textbooks reflected the official line. It was a closed system. But now,
you can write responses to these people and your views can be out in the
open. They canít get away with misquoting you or otherwise covering
up the truth.
-
- For example, during my debate with Jaffa, he said three
things that struck me as wrong. He said that the King of England never
recognized the states as states, that Virginia never reserved the right
to withdraw from the union, and finally that Lincoln never did anything
that was unconstitutional. Now, the last point was easy to answer, but
I had a response out within days to the other two points, and Jaffa turns
out to be completely wrong.
-
- Mises.org: Your book is selling well?
-
- DiLorenzo: Very. At the national meeting of sales representatives
of Random House, they were sizing up the current hot sellers and my book
was close to the top of the list. Iím very pleased by this. The
myth of Lincoln cannot stand up under scrutiny, and after all these years,
the word is finally getting out. ___
-
- Thomas DiLorenzo is a professor of economics in the Sellinger
School of Business and Management at Loyola College in Baltimore, and is
senior fellow of the Mises Institute. See his Mises.org Articles Archive,
and send him MAIL. Also, listen to Dr. DiLorenzo's recent book discussion
on The Real Lincoln (in MP3 format). His article "The Great Centralizer,"
written for a Mises Institute conference, was published in the Independent
Review and is available online. His book is also available from Amazon.com.
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Ernest Cann
ernwanna@webtv.net
6-13-2
-
- Jeff,
-
- As I was reading this article I noticed the adjectives
pop out such as,'mercantilist' high tariffs,'pork' in the formof interal
improvements,'promoter' of central bank, ad nauseum!
-
- It wasn't 'mercantilist' high tariffs, it was necessary
high taris, it wasn't 'pork' in the form of internal improvements, it was
simply 'NECESSARY' improvements!
-
- It wasn't simply 'promoter' of central bank, but rather
a 'real' bank that was going to work in the interest of the counrty, not
as with the 'private bank' that the MIses types really like!
-
- After all if you read Carey's (Lincoln's economics ideas
came from here)' Harmony of Interests', you will see that 'free trade'
was an opposing British form of economic policy that wanted the 'robber
baron' elitist, mercantilist, rentier-financier oligarchy to rule and have
their way!
-
- As opposed to strong government protection over industry
and finance in the interest of the country!!!!
-
- Look around atthe privatization in this country and around
he world, free trade, deregulation means..rape and rob the governments,
people and industries, all in he nameof 'freedom', to be free from 'big
government'!
-
- That is not to say that we don't have incompetent and
corrupt people in these positions, but we have a great framework left to
us, it is up to us to educate ourselves and use it in the the interest,
of the 'general welfare' as was called for by our oft-qouted constitution!!
|
