We are a bit late on this, but about three months ago, award-winning historian Brooks Simpson launched a new blog, titled Crossroads. Simpson is the ASU Foundation Professor of History at Arizona State University and formerly was a contributor to the Civil Warriors blog. He describes his new blog as a forum to discuss history, historians, and "the academic life." We particularly welcome the latter subject. In the face of mounting criticism of all levels of the education profession (see the Wisconsin budget battle as just one example), it seems increasingly vital that academics demystify their profession by talk candidly about it, their work, and their intellectual mission.
Indeed, today's Crossroads post is part of a series titled "Debating DiLorenzo," referring to Thomas DiLorenzo, a professor of Economics at Maryland's Loyola University and a strident critic of Abraham Lincoln. In a previous post, I referenced DiLorenzo's provocative but sloppy histories of Lincoln and his contempt for what he sees as a liberal historical profession that mythologizes the former president and denigrates his detractors. In today's post, Simpson adroitly critiques DiLorenzo's absurd notions of the existence of a conspiratorial, academic Lincoln cult and soberly points out that no serious historian seeks to build a career on preserving a Lincoln hagiography. Rather, the historical profession is a contentious and competitive field in which believers and dissenters, to paraphrase DiLorenzo, tend to enjoy similar levels of success.
To me, it would be more accurate to suggest that not only is there no "cult of Lincoln," but rather DiLorenzo is working tirelessly to create a cult of himself as the lone, persecuted historical critic of the 16th president. Creating this cult is serving him well, as it results in a bevy of speaking engagements and, one safely assumes, a growing audience of readers of his iconoclastic books. In assuming this martyr's role, DiLorenzo arguably has garnered more attention than he has for his contributions to the field in which he is actually educated and trained (Economics, in case you forgot). Of course, Professor DiLorenzo is not Lincoln's only critic in the academy, and he also is far from the most skillful, but Professor Simpson does a better and more thorough job of exposing that reality in his blog than I could do here, so I'll leave it at that.
We look forward to Professor Simpson's future posts on this and other topics, and we highly recommend this exciting new blog.
@Crossroads, Blog Divided, The Abraham Lincoln Blog
Indeed, today's Crossroads post is part of a series titled "Debating DiLorenzo," referring to Thomas DiLorenzo, a professor of Economics at Maryland's Loyola University and a strident critic of Abraham Lincoln. In a previous post, I referenced DiLorenzo's provocative but sloppy histories of Lincoln and his contempt for what he sees as a liberal historical profession that mythologizes the former president and denigrates his detractors. In today's post, Simpson adroitly critiques DiLorenzo's absurd notions of the existence of a conspiratorial, academic Lincoln cult and soberly points out that no serious historian seeks to build a career on preserving a Lincoln hagiography. Rather, the historical profession is a contentious and competitive field in which believers and dissenters, to paraphrase DiLorenzo, tend to enjoy similar levels of success.
To me, it would be more accurate to suggest that not only is there no "cult of Lincoln," but rather DiLorenzo is working tirelessly to create a cult of himself as the lone, persecuted historical critic of the 16th president. Creating this cult is serving him well, as it results in a bevy of speaking engagements and, one safely assumes, a growing audience of readers of his iconoclastic books. In assuming this martyr's role, DiLorenzo arguably has garnered more attention than he has for his contributions to the field in which he is actually educated and trained (Economics, in case you forgot). Of course, Professor DiLorenzo is not Lincoln's only critic in the academy, and he also is far from the most skillful, but Professor Simpson does a better and more thorough job of exposing that reality in his blog than I could do here, so I'll leave it at that.
We look forward to Professor Simpson's future posts on this and other topics, and we highly recommend this exciting new blog.
@Crossroads, Blog Divided, The Abraham Lincoln Blog
I agree with you that DiLorenzo is working tirelessly to create a cult. In fact in his book Lincoln Unmasked DiLorenzo directs criticism at Lincoln where he argues that states within the union had the right at the time of the American Civil War to secede and that the more centralized government that emerged after the war was incompatible with democracy. If those are not foundation of a cult, I don't know what is..
Thanks for the comment, P.J. I believe those aspects of DiLorenzo's argument that you mention actually represent some of his more incisive and cogent thought, and they certainly are worthy of serious debate. I take issue, however, with his absurd portrayal of himself as a lone, brave voice speaking out against a "cult" of Lincoln scholars, who, because of their liberal ideologies and their adoration of the 16th president, mercilessly pan his work. In reality, he is neither the sole, nor the most skillful of Lincoln's critics in academia. Moreover, his work earns decidedly mixed reviews not because of reviewers' political biases, but because of its own readily apparent flaws, such as inadequate research, ahistorical conceptual frameworks, and over-reaching arguments, among other problems. At the very least though, his work occasions spirited debate.