In DiLorenzo’s book, THE REAL LINCOLN A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, gives a critical overview of President Lincoln; his view on slavery, the National Bank and the Reconstruction. DiLorenzo’s book examines the actions taken by President Lincoln, and gives “evidence that Abraham Lincoln is not the Great Emancipator, but the Great Centralizer.” (xiii) From the beginning, DiLorenzo gives an untrue characterization of what Lincoln actually thought of African Americans. He goes on to insinuate that Lincoln’s main goal was to have a government that was centralized and led by him. He views Lincoln as a Dictator and suggests Lincoln threw away constitutional liberties,” with his casual abolition of the writ of…show more content… Abraham Lincoln was primarily an attorney. He was known for his cunningness and even though he tried many cases, he was a paid consultant for other attorneys in the courtroom. He was able to present cases before the Illinois and United States Supreme Courts. “In twenty-three years of litigation he never defended a runaway slave, but he did defend a slave owner.” (15). Even though he lost the case, it is still an important fact. Lincoln had a different view of slavery, then what has been portrayed to the public throughout the…show more content… The weakness is that DiLorenzo is one of a few authors who actually try to challenge the reputation of one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States. In the book, other critics suggest he gets the topics of slavery and the issue of race mixed up. For example, Reviewer Richard Gamble likes DiLorenzo’s approach because he,’ manages to raise fresh and morally probing questions,” and believes that Lincoln’s real agenda,” emerges as primarily economic, not humanitarian.” Although he seems supportive at first, he believes DiLorenzo loses all credibility because he “misidentifies sources, dates, and quotes. “He is an author of evident courage and ability, but his sloppiness has earned him the abuse and ridicule of his critics.” A critique by Thomas Krannawitter is interesting as he has nothing positive to say about it. Using his humor he states, “The alleged purpose of Thomas DiLorenzo's invective is to defend constitutionalism and free market economics. He claims to demonstrate that Lincoln was an enemy of both, as well as a hypocrite on the subject of "racial equality." What he mainly demonstrates, however, is that his aim is not nearly as good as Booth's. ” He also agrees that the book has many misquotes and many facts that are mixed up. He said, “One howler after another, yet none of it
