In the book, DiLorenzo brings up several topics. The first one, which seems to be one of DiLorenzo’s strongest arguments, is the question of why Lincoln did not end slavery peacefully. In chapter three, DiLorenzo tells the reader “Dozens of countries, including the possessions of the British, French, and Spanish empires, ended slavery peacefully during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries” (48). Since all these other countries were able to end slavery in this way, the question is why America could not. The amount of blood shed and lives lost on American soil was enormous and from DiLorenzo’s view, very unnecessary. To begin to try to answer this question, people have to know the reason of the war. So, the next one that is brought up that most Americans …show more content…
DiLorenzo makes the case in chapter six that Lincoln wanted no part in racial equality and was almost playing the system to do whatever he had to do to keep his power politically. Dilorenzo mentioned Lincoln being on either side, saying he was not for or against slavery. Whatever was pleasing in the country’s eyes is what Lincoln made visible according to DiLorenzo. A topic also mentioned Lincoln’s agenda. This is what Lincoln planned on bringing to the table, what his priorities were, and the things he wanted to get done during his time in office. During his early years as a politician and lawyer, Lincoln’s mentor was Henry Clay. Henry Clay was in charge of the Whig Party and its ideas mirrored those of Alexander Hamilton. Just like this party, the things on Lincoln’s agenda were advocating protective tariffs, having a national centralized banking system, and internal improvements (55). DiLorenzo claimed that Lincoln and his army waged war on the South in a dictatorial way. In chapter seven, reports say that “Sheridan and his 35,000 infantry troops, plus three divisions of cavalry, faced no military opposition at all and proceeded to terrorize the women, children,