Rating: 
Summary: Give me your money, fellow Lost Causers!
Review: What a cheap opportunistic book this is. I'm sure Di-Lie-Renzo is laughing all the way to the bank with this one!Spring 1861. Riots erupted in Baltimore. Bridges were burned, telegraph lines were cut, Union troops trying to pass through to DC were stoned; Confederates had blockaded the lower Potomac. The governor of South Carolina (Gov. Pickens) had written a letter calling for his militia to invade Washington DC. "Dear Genl: The Navy yard at Norfolk is all in flames -- Baltimore unanimous on our side, and all communications with Washington cut off -- & only 5,000 troops in Washington -- it can be taken! etc. etc." The Confederate Secretary of War boasted that before May the Confederate flag would rise above the Washington. Washington was in grave danger of being invaded and burned, the government of the United States destroyed forever. Congress was not in session. Lincoln, in the words of Secretary of State Seward, was extremely reluctant to suspend habeas corpus. One Sunday Seward pleaded with him and he was told that the penalty for further delay was perdition, which was completely accurate. Lincoln very reluctantly agreed to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Lincoln was correct. If I pay $50 to listen to one of Di-Lie-Renzo's half-baked speeches, will he tell me why the Confederacy suspended habeas corpus? Will he tell me why they called for conscription and declared martial law? Or would that take away from his meal ticket of telling Neo-Confederates the fairy tales they yearn to hear?
Why did Lincoln offer Vallingham safe passage through Confederate lines? Because he was organizing violent anti-Union groups. If during World War II, all of the German-Americans in Washington DC were plotting to riot, overthrow the United States government, and take up arms against Americans, would Di-Lie-Renzo think they were in the right? He probably would. Lincoln was right. Lincoln was personally responsible for suspending only one newspaper - the New York World -- for running a faked proclamation in his name that demanded 100,000 more soldiers. In short, it was treason and one of countless Copperhead plots against the United States - this one with the aim of setting off a new draft riot in NYC. Lincoln was doing his job - protecting the citizens of the United States. Lincoln suspended the newspaper for a week. Lincoln was right. In nearly every other instance, Lincoln was continually overriding his overzealous generals and coming down on the side of free speech and freedom. This is documented. If you want to see the facts, the actual records of the Union's civil liberties policies, and not Di-Lie-Renzo's fabrications and misquotes, read "The Fate of Liberty". Lincoln never debated Stephen Douglas over tariffs. Di-Lie-Renzo is lying. Big surprise there. The tariff of 1857 (the existing tariff before the Morill tariff, which went through in 1861 BEFORE Lincoln was sworn in as President and AFTER the Southern Senators had already walked out) was the lowest in 20 years and had bipartisian support. The delegates from South Carolina had voted for it. Di-Lie-Renzo is incorrect. The Union held elections in the middle of the war - an election Lincoln himself believed he was going to lose. Sheesh, some dictator he was. Di-Lie-Renzo is, as usual, incorrect. As far as the dreck about Lincoln and racism, Frederick Douglass said it best: "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined." And I'll close with Robert. E. Lee: "I surrended as much to Lincoln's goodness as I did to Grant's armies."
Rating: 
Summary: A hackle-raiser for sure!
Review: If there are any sacred cows in America, the one at the head of the herd has got to be Abraham Lincoln. Our culture gleefully villifies almost everyone. Psycho-biographies, in which the darkest interior rooms of the subject are exposed to light, are the rage these days. But somehow Lincoln for the most part has managed to escape all this. He's still the great American hero, venerated by layperson and scholar alike, sometimes to the point of embarrassing hagiography. (I once knew a history professor, for example, who insisted that students refer to Lincoln, both in class discussions and in term papers, as "MR. Lincoln." His class could just as well have been offered by the theology department.) Thomas DiLorenzo refuses to genuflect before Lincoln's altar. In *The Real Lincoln*, a book that's guaranteed to infuriate a wide audience, ranging from Civil War buffs to Lincoln scholars to African-Americans to political liberals to history traditionalists, DiLorenzo claims that Lincoln's real historical legacy is the strong centralized state that characterizes the American political system today. From first to last, claims DiLorenzo, Lincoln's political vision was the creation of a Whiggish empire of protectionist tariffs, government subsidized railroads, and nationalization of the money supply. In the first year and a half of his administration, he pushed through much of this agenda. The average tariff rate tripled, railroads began raking in government money (a "war necessity"), and the National Currency Acts monopolized the money supply. So far none of this is terribly alarming. Even admirers of Lincoln will admit much of what DiLorenzo says about Lincoln's economic dream and Whig leanings. But where DiLorenzo begins to stir up a storm is when he claims (1) that Lincoln basically allowed an unnecessary and horribly bloody war to occur in order to further his political vision of a strong state; (2) Lincoln was a "constitutional dictator"; and (3) Lincoln was never terribly concerned with slavery as a moral injustice. In reference to the first point, DiLorenzo points out that the right to secession was simply taken for granted by most Americans prior to Lincoln's administration because they saw the country as a voluntary association of states. Lincoln didn't "save" the Union so much as he destroyed it as a voluntary association. In reference to the second point, DiLorenzo provides example after example of Lincoln's disregard--supposedly in the interests of the state--for the Constitution: launching a military invasion without Congressional consent; suspension of habeas corpus; censorship of newspapers; meddling with elections; confiscating private property; and so on. Finally, in reference to the last point--which is probably the book's most inflammatory one--DiLorenzo argues that Lincoln rarely mentioned the issue of slavery in political speeches until it became politically expedient to begin doing so. His opposition to slavery was always based on what he feared was its economic dangers, not on moral principle. As his contemporaries accurately noted, Lincoln the "Great Emancipator" was never an abolitionist. Even after the Emancipation Proclamation, he was willing to tolerate slaveholding in nonsecessionist states. His ultimate solution--one that infuriated abolitionists such as Horace Greeley--was to colonize American blacks "back" to Africa or the Caribbean. Much of DiLorenzo's claims about Lincoln's activities will be familiar. What's new about the book is the overall unfavorable portrait of Lincoln that emerges as DiLorenzo discusses them. It may be the case that DiLorenzo has swung too far in the opposite direction from conventional Lincoln hagiography. But it may also be the case that his book will encourage more moderate and accurate portrayals of Lincoln in the future. One can admire Lincoln without worshipping him.
Rating: 
Summary: The Real Lincolnby DiLorenzo
Review: This is without a doubt the best book available that enables one to understand why and how the federal government has taken advantage of the people of this country and built(unlawfully) just what Jefferson had feared. It explaines how the check on federal power was ignored.Constitutional destruction.I do not like to use the word destroyed because we are fortunate enough to have the the 9th and 10th amendments still in place. The way to regain them is another issue. DiLorenzo has clues as to how to address this march to regency we now have been forced to endure.
Rating:
Summary: An Essential Resource for Educators
Review: As a professional educator and a life-long student of Abraham Lincoln, I strongly recommend this work for my fellow teachers. It is a well-documented resource for anyone who works with American history. It should not be used as a single source, but it is necessary to provide historical balance alongside long-evolved Lincoln legend. Ignore the superfluous emotional rhetoric of others, and judge for yourself. You will be pleasantly surprised and will be doing your students a favor.
Rating:
Summary: Strictly for the tin-foil hat Waco Black Helicopter crowd!
Review: Only the most mentally disturbed fringe nuts of the right would look on this bird cage liner with any degree of respect. DeNutjob uses poorly researched history and adds a liberal dose of revisionist history to boot. If you believe the holocaust never happened; this book is for you. If you believe UN black helicopters fly over the sky at night; this book is for you. And if you believe that aliens speak to you through your dental fillings; this book is for you. Strictly for mental patients who are off their medication. Hope this helps!
;-))
Rating:
Summary: Demolish the Lincoln Memorial!
Review: Thomas Dilorenzo is an economist, not a historian. Maybe this is why this book is so great: it brings reason, academic honesty, and understanding of decision-making into a field that is mostly devoid of all those things. Dr. Dilorenzo's book ends the Lincoln debate: it is complete, well-researched and carefully footnoted, and straightforward. Lincoln was a tariff-loving, good-for-nothing politician. Its not incredibly useful to summarize the evidence or the arguments contained in the book, read it for yourself. Remember that the author is holding no punches - the myth of Lincoln is brought down like any myth should be: with the straightforward, frank truth. After reading this book, there should be no doubt that Lincoln should be villified instead of glorified. Will the idea catch on? It seems unlikely that the hero-worship of our presidents will ever totally die out, but perhaps reading this book will open the eyes of Americans. This is not (but should be) what they teach you in civics class: it is revisionist history as it should be. Anyone even remotely interested in American history should get a lot from this book. It confronts our cultural icons dead-on and makes us think critically about our national identity, our values, and what we teach the children of this country. This is the kind of book that the field of history needs more of: hopefully historians will realize this and start thinking more like economists.
Rating: 
Summary: Tunnel vision mars what might be an essential biography.
Review: As perhaps the most important president in our history, Lincoln has inspired more biographies than any other. Any president controversial enough to generate a successful assassination must have a throng of detractors, so why shouldn't he generate a scathing critique? Indeed, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and the hasty imprisonment of the governor of his home state surely set dangerous precedent, the likes of which we have not seen since, despite DiLorenzo's doomsaying. Actions such as these deserve deep analysis, but alas, the hungry reader will not find them here. If you seek some sympathy for the Confederacy and you want to hear that the Civil War was not about slavery, you just might be the reader for this book. DiLorenzo asserts repeatedly that Lincoln was a white supremecist who never believed that blacks were equal to whites, but ignores certain anecdotes about his life, such as an incident where, as a young man, he left Louisville after working there for a short time after protesting the beating that a black man took at the hands of a shop owner. Whatever went through Lincoln's mind at that time, and whatever he thought of equality and slavery, stories like that suggest that he did not tolerate cruelty to others. DiLorenzo's evidence of Lincoln's real opinions are pieced together from speeches and political addresses. Not surprisingly, he told different audiences different things, as politicians often do, and could do very easily in an age before microphones could record their soundbites and play them nationwide. Determining a politician's sincere opinion from speeches is suspect at best, but either the author does not know this, or he insults the reader's intelligence by suggesting that it is. Since Lincoln did not regularly keep journals throughout his life, our impressions of him come largely from conjecture, and it would be conceited to suggest there is imperical evidence of his core beliefs. The book asserts that Lincoln only used emancipation as a cynical ploy, but the thought never occurred to DiLorenzo that perhaps Lincoln wanted emancipation and the status quo attitude toward slavery was the ploy. Yes, Lincoln was at odds with the abolitionist movement, as if the only possible reason to disagree with them was to be pro-slave. It was possible to be against slavery, but still condemn John Brown's guerilla tactics at ending it. It was possible to endorse abolition, yet question William Lloyd Garrison's sincerity toward the cause. So hellbent is DiLorenzo on painting Lincoln the tyrant that he takes him to task for betraying the America envisioned by Jefferson and John Calhoun. In hindsight, this hardly makes him a scoundrel. Jefferson claimed to champion personal liberties yet kept his own flesh and blood in bondage, even after his own death. Moreover, Jefferson's single greatest presidential accomplishment required him to violate his own ideal for the office by buying Louisiana. Calhoun was viciously pro-slave, pro-"state's rights", anti-abolitionist. All the better if Lincoln contradicted him. In saying that he led us astray is to say that Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists had a monopoly on founding this country. Yes, Lincoln was an intellectual descendant of Hamilton, but that should be no more of a crime than descending from Jefferson. As to the claim that Lincoln overexpanded the reach of the federal government, the civil liberties outlined in the Constitution are completely meaningless without the 14th Amendment. The Bill of Rights only stipulated that Congress could not legislate in violation of the rights therein. State governments had no such blocks and often took advantage of the loophole until the most egregious examples were challenged and abolished by Supreme Court cases in the 100 years following the War's conclusion. Then there is the issue of slavery itself. DiLorenzo repeats often that a war was an unnecessarily bloody method of ending slavery, if that was its aim; slavery would have ended anyhow. This is no doubt true, but since France and Great Britain ended slavery in their remaining colonies by 1835 and the South had clung on another 30 years, he never specifies when that day would have come. Whatever its death toll and its true impetus, the war did end slavery. It was by pure chance that I read this book at the time of Trent Lott's unintentional candor about race. In defense of his words, Republican party faithful rush to point out that their party has never been bigoted. After all, this was the party of Lincoln. DiLorenzo belabors the point early in the book that the party was never about abolition. They wanted slavery expansion curtailed in western territories like Utah and New Mexico so that "the white man would not have to compete with slave labor". He cites newspapers that say the party "is for the white race, not the negro". Apart from Republican Horace Greely he does not tell whether these quotes were written in defense of the party ideology or in disparagement. Whatever it is, it might be modern GOPers who might have the toughest time swallowing much of this book.
Rating:
Summary: Ouch...looks like Abe wasn't so honest after all
Review: In my 25 years I've read exactly one book in a single day, and that book was "The Real Lincoln." In a clear and concise writing style, Tom DiLorenzo has rendered a devastating revisionist critique of this country's "greatest" president. Those who have been subjected to endless Lincoln worship from grade school on will surely be surprised by this in-depth look at ol' Honest Abe and the agenda he hid behind all his lofty rhetoric. As DiLorenzo stresses numerous times, Lincoln was a great politician and lawyer, but left much to be desired as a statesman. In the book's early chapters, DiLorenzo sets about debunking the image of Lincoln as the "Great Emancipator." In reality, as proved by numerous quotes, Lincoln was a committed white supremacist who supported Illinois's ultra-harsh Black Codes designed to protect the state's white work force from black competition. He repeatedly stated that he had no intentions of disturbing the institution of slavery where it existed, and actually favored either the continued oppression or deportation of the country's black population. The Emancipation Proclamation, far from being some sort of principled stand against slavery, was a military measure stemming from the North's desperate military situation at the time. As Lincoln's secretary of state, William Seward, noted sardonically, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set the free." Although DiLorenzo succeeds in thoroughly destroying the "Great Emancipator" myth, he does substitute a new and more accurate label for Lincoln: The Great Centralizer. DiLorenzo presents the reader with a Lincoln whose real agenda was the devastation of states' rights and constitutional government in order to pave the way for the Whig/Republican agenda he had favored his entire political life: high protective tariffs to benefit Northern business, government subsidies for internal improvements, and a nationalized banking system. As DiLorenzo convincingly demonstrates, Lincoln's real aim was to eliminate the right of the states to secede, which had been taken for granted up to that point in American history. With the defeat of the South, the last check on Washington's authority was removed, and the path was cleared for increasingly greater intrusions of federal power. And as if that's not bad enough, DiLorenzo discusses some of the shadier aspects of the conduct of the war itself. Lincoln, he writes, has done more to turn the U.S. Constitution into a dead document than anyone else. Arbitrary arrest, the suspension of habeas corpus, massive restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly, and even the deportation of the Peace Democrat Clement Vallandigham were all part of the Lincoln's systematic campaign to silence any dissent the war generated in the North. In imposing such restrictions on basic freedoms, Lincoln helped to establish a precedent for every totalitarian regime that followed. Perhaps even worse, the Civil War helped inaugurate the concept of total war, evidenced by the by the shameful treatment of Southern civilians by Northern soldiers (many of whom were foreign criminals sent here when the prisons in their native countries were emptied). Sherman's and Sheridan's armies left a trail of destruction and destitution in their wakes, and since Lincoln was known to micromanage the war effort, DiLorenzo claims it's all but impossible that these activities occurred without his consent. Now, in all fairness, it should be pointed out that DiLorenzo is a free-market economist, not a historian, and this book is more a polemic than a true biography. At the same time, though, DiLorenzo's background in economics enables him to launch into a discussion of just what Lincoln's centralization scheme has given us: high taxes, protectionist tariffs that benefit preferred businesses at the expense of consumers, an activist Supreme Court, and staggering levels of government waste. This book is more proof that a little historical revision can be a good thing every now and then. With "The Real Lincoln," DiLorenzo hasn't just laid waste to an icon, he's made a convincing case for liberty (and not the fake kind George Bush talks about endlessly either).
Rating:
Summary: The best book ever on Lincoln
Review: Thomas DiLorenzo has hit the nail on the head with this book. Lincoln and the Republican Party are the reason we have big government to this very day. In Lincoln's own words "I have taken the Constitution and stuck it in a hole," and politicians have been doing that ever since. Far too many people think Lincoln was America's greatest president. This just shows the stupidity of America, and how well the government school system is working! Lincoln destroyed these United States, and it's form of government as it was created by the founding fathers. The so-called "civil war" was no more about slavery than World War 2 was about the Jewish People, or the holocaust! As almost every war it was about money & power, and the bad guys won! In fact they have won so much so that a majority of the reviews written about this book are by stupid people who care nothing for the facts, or truth! Mr. DiLorenzo's book should be mandatory reading for every school child across the planet! The truth is far to valuable a tool to be distorted by racist, liberal, idiots! And that is exactly what Lincoln was!
Rating:
Summary: Honest History with Quotes
Review: This is not what they teach in Public school. The teachers who get their paychecks from the government do not want you to know this information. I am amazed at how many people who are descendants of slavery admire Lincoln. That is perhaps the greatest "spin" in the history of the United States. DiLorenzo uses quotes to prove that Lincoln had no concern for the slaves; he would have rather deported them. The War of Lincolns Aggression was about an all-powerful federal government. Lincoln ignored the Constitution and had anyone who dared to dissent killed or jailed. Congressmen, editors and citizens where all arrested. Habeas Corpus was suspended. Lincoln and his troops committed countless atrocities. The end does not justify the means, especially when the end is defined as an injustice. DiLorenzo documents these truths, even though those who cannot dispute the facts will smear him as a racist rather than engage in academic debate.
Buy this book for all your friends who are descendants of slavery, they deserve the truth.
| 
