Rating: 
Summary: A needed slap in the face of liberal orthodoxy
Review: DiLorenzo has done a major service to the truth by publishing this book. With a resurgence in critical studies of the Lincoln administration's corrupution underway (and long overdue), DiLorenzo's book promises to be a trail-blazing effort. The myth that slavery was the sole cause of the war, or even a major one, needs to be exploded once and for all, and this book does wonders in terms of getting this viewpoint out and circulating it among the public, who too often are only familiar with the "Honest Abe" stereotype presented by current academics, the man who supposedly freed the slaves out of the goodness of his heart and saved his country from a terrible tragedy. I agree with a previous reviewer that the book's major flaw is its brevity, and one can only hope DiLorenzo's next book will be as powerful as this one. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: The Revolution Was
Review: Although Abraham Lincoln plunged the United States into a brutal war that divided the nation against itself, he is now praised almost unanimously as a brilliant politician and humanitarian. While he is called the "great emancipator" he repeatedly stated that his goal was not to interfere with slavery in those areas in which it was legal. Prof. Thomas DiLorenzo has written an excellent work providing a "new look" at Lincoln, "his agenda" and an "unnecessary war." Actually, the look presented isn't exactly new. Authors have criticized Lincoln for a long time and books have been written about the brutality of the War Between the States and the centralizing effects of Lincoln's revolution. Nonetheless, this book gathers all of that information and makes it easy for the layman to digest. As Prof. DiLorenzo shows, the key to understanding Lincoln is not slavery, but his life-long devotion to Henry Clay and his "American system." Simply put, Clay believed in "internal improvements" (government spending projects) and tariffs. This is what we today might call "big government" and required centralization. Seen in this light, Lincoln's aims are understandable - expand the power of government, restrict civil liberties, and defeat secession "by any means necessary." That explains the rise of centralized banking, the income tax, and "corporate welfare" during Lincoln's reign. On issue after issue, Prof. DiLorenzo sets the record straight. For example, we are told that secession was "treason." Yet Lincoln had supported the right to succeed in 1848. In fact, two states (Virginia and New York) had ratified the Constitution with a proviso that they were not giving up their right to secede. Lincoln is portrayed as the liberator of the black man, yet he stated that he did not believe in racial equality. Abraham Lincoln may not have been the "great emancipator," but Prof. DiLorenzo shows that he was the "great centralizer." It was Lincoln who more than anyone destroyed the limited government that the founders created. No wonder he is praised by the left and the neo-conservative "right."
Rating: 
Summary: Written by Thomas J. Wilkes Booth?
Review: This book is a bitter polemic masquerading as historical scholarship. I think the reason many reviewers here that give this book the rating it deserves (the lowest) may not seem to focus on the "facts" as the anti-Lincoln acolytes of Mr. DiLorenzo claim to want, is that the author, Mr. DiLorenzo, only distorts facts to fit his biased views. How can you stick to the facts when reviewing this book when the author felt to compunction to do so when he wrote it? Time and time again, Mr. DiLorenzo either mischaracterizes or misquotes President Lincoln. Mr. DiLorenzo appears to lack any ability to understand the complexities of time and place in the real world. As you read it, you are led to believe that President Lincoln did everything wrong, but Mr. DiLorenzo would have done everything right had the country been fortunate enough to have him as president. What John Wilkes Booth did to President Lincoln's life, Mr. DiLorenzo seeks to do to President Lincoln's reputation. And he can only resort to lies and tricks to do it.
Rating:
Summary: Finally, an honest evaluation of Lincoln...
Review: I was taught when in Public School, Lincoln was our greatest President. But the cold hard facts are is that he destroyed our Constitution and the Limited Goverment of our Founding Fathers. He usurped the Constitution and brought in an activist Central Goverment that squashes all that oppose it. The first book that brought a new light on Lincoln for me was "Lincoln takes Command" by John Tilley. I was challenged to dig further to find out the truth. It is ironic, that many claim us "Southerners" invented the Lost Cause and venerate Robert E Lee, Thomas J Jackson etc at the expense of truth. To me the REAL Myth makers are those who exalt Lincoln and his War on the Confederacy. It was Lincoln that claimed the "Union" formed the States. Read the true fact, The States preceeded the Union. I challenge anyone to find the words "Indisivible Union" anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. It is not there! Secession was and is a legal right. After all, we seceeded from England to form the orignal 13 states! I suggest you read the book entitled " When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams". He defends Secession. It was a real eye opener! Ever wonder why the US Goverment never tried Jefferson Davis on the treason charges? I honestly think and believe the South would have been vindicated. So in other words, the Federal Goverment would have lost in Court what they won on the battlefield. Some reviewers have questioned Mr. Dilorenzo's facts. But, He only quotes Mr. Lincoln. Who are the "real" Myth makers??? I think the Lincoln defenders are hands down!I strongly suggest you read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting
Review: In reviews of any book about the civil war, particularly one critical of the Union, orthodox view, you are going to hear from absolutists on both ends of the argument, both claiming either that this is a more "objective" work or that some other book with an opposing view is more "objective". History retold is always subjective to some degree; the really important aspect is whether the author builds a compelling case with referenced facts. This DiLorenzo does...
What this book is NOT: 1. A defense of slavery (should be obvious)
2. A marxist or leftist revisionist attempt to cast America's history in a shameful light by tearing down our cherished icons.
3. A blanket defense of the South, or blanket condemnation of the North. What it IS:
1. A profound examination of the often neglected economic factors that were at the root of the North-South dichotomy.
2. A deconstruction of the motivations behind Lincoln's actions, not from a whitewashed public school perspective but from an understanding of what his priorities were as he had established in word and deed, over and over again (colonization as a "solution" for black slaves; the Federalization of the government at the expense of the States in an effort to establish a massive spoils system, etc).
3. A cogent critique of Lincoln's complete and utter disregard for the US Constitution, and thus an indication of where the slide really began from the America of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to the confusing mess of capitalism, centralization and socialism it is today.
4. A rational understanding of the nature of secession in the 19th century, and a defense for its rightful place as the ultimate check on Federal power. Are there occasions when quotes from Lincoln could use a little more context to round them out (as National Review pointed out in its scathing review)? Absolutely. But the sheer volume of well-researched citations from all sorts of sources make his case in their own right, and the book is written in a compelling and straightforward manner with very little rhetorical trickery. If you are interested in the Civil War, there is simply no excuse for not giving this book a fair read before disagreeing with it. At the very least, it can only broaden one's understanding, and it is so extensively footnoted with material from everyone from the Founding Fathers to Lincoln to his contemporaries that it is an invaluable resource.
Rating:
Summary: Ever wonder why?
Review: This book has generated quite a bit of commentary, most being open-minded and positive. Historian Thomas DiLorenzo takes an unorthodox look at the decisions and behaviours of the 16th President of the United States. Challenging the thoughts of over one hundred years of legend making of this assassinated President has not been a smooth ride for DiLorenzo. It never is when the subject of scrutiny is an icon of mythical and saintly proportions. The book itself is full of references to Lincoln's behaviour unknown to most of the public, both lettered and unlettered. Di Lorenzo states that he is clearly intent on showing the "real" Lincoln. In this regard, DiLorenzo is honest (much more than Abe, the reader will learn). Lincoln is not damned in this book by DiLorenzo, but BY HIS OWN WORDS. You may read a list of the contents in the other reviews so I won't repeat them here. The evidence in this book isn't shocking to me. I have never respected A. Lincoln (the skunk) or his bloody, murderous actions. I am neither shocked by the reaction of the status quo history industry. Someone here stated that no "well-respected" historian has endorsed this book. Small wonder isn't it? The "well-respected" historians (the politically correct, celebrity court historians such as Jim-Bob McPherson and Harry Laffa-Jaffa) believe it might hurt the sales of their own Lincoln biographies if they did so. Their books are a dime a dozen and they know it. With nothing new under the sun, they churn out another cliche-ridden tome every few years with a new colourful dust jacket. The public falls for it and buys it. No competition and the book sells. DiLorenzo's book has generated both sales and fear--fear in the hearts of the dime-a-dozen-celebrity historians (sorry, I mean well-respected historians). The biggest question I have is why haven't the "well respected" historians revealed these facts to the public? There are two reasons: 1) They don't want the public to know. An ignorant public helps boost the sale of their books.They are the keepers of the "Terrible Secret", the high priests and chief doctrine enforcers of the Cult of Lincoln; or, 2) They have no idea these facts exist. In this case, they ought to hide their heads in utter shame that an "unknown" and "amateur" historian has been able to discover tons of information that has managed to escape their "thorough" research. If this is so, DiLorenzo has not only exposed Lincoln but also the incredibly shoddy scholarship of the highly exalted "well-respected" historians. There is the emperor, and he is wearing no clothes. It is with great hope that this book continues to generate interest and comments. The Lincoln myth is definitely a bad one and is in dire need of being shattered. The time is ripe. The centralist government schools (of which Lincoln would be proud) have done an outstanding job of dumbing down American youth from K-University. Most could not place Lincoln in the correct half of the correct century, so the myth is already dying. Even the descendants of the slaves are abandoning him. Now is the time to set forth a more truthful portrait of Lincoln. Perhaps the day will come when the huge pagan memorial in Washington raised to this ethically-challenged man will be smashed to dust!!
Rating:
Summary: Lincoln Myth Shattered
Review: Factual, scholarly, shatters the myth of the saintly Lincoln who united a nation and freed the slaves. Book exposes the fact that Lincoln was formost a politician and that his ambitions were responsible for the destruction of half the nation. Proves his greatest interest is blacks was that they be expelled from America.
Rating:
Summary: The Real Lincoln
Review: Most Americans are taught the party line in the public schools: the Civil War was fought between the bigoted slave owners of the South and the enlightened, freedom-loving, best-people-on-earth northerners led by the greatest of all presidents, Abraham Lincoln. Since the northerners prevailed, all is well and good. Although the national government must see to it that the children are taught such civic religion versus the truth, we adults can discern the facts. The facts demonstrate entirely the opposite. The so-called civil war was primarily a looting, pillaging and plundering assault on the people of the South by those of the north, conducted under license of the national government under Mr. Lincoln. This author surgically disassembles the myths about Mr. Lincoln, the first American dictator, in a balanced, pragmatic approach. I found this book highly relevant to the present: with the national government continuing to behave as an out-of-control machine because the constitutional control mechanisms that the founding fathers set up have been largely removed. This book is a real eye-opener.
Rating: 
Summary: Revisionism !!!
Review: Lincoln among many others both of the north and south, thought that the impending war was going to be short. Certainly not the long bloody conflict that was the Civil War. One of the reasons that the war was so bloody was because the tools of warfare were far ahead of strategy and the means to care for and aid the wounded was still in the middle ages. If indeed slavery was going to end by its own accord, this must not have been known to the supporters of slavery, for why make an issue of wanting slavery to extend to new territories ???
Jeff Davis said that he wish he could have exercised some the powers that Lincoln did, such as suspension of habeas corpus.
The southern states were a bunch a selfish fiefdoms and that caused them the war. You bitter eager critics of Lincoln, he realized what was needed to win the conflict and he did what was necessary to win it.
Rating:
Summary: History through tainted, biased glasses
Review: Three words: This book stinks. Mr. Dilorenzo makes the same tragic, fatally flawed mistake any uninformed, amateur historian would do - he cannot evaluate a person in history in the context of the times in which he (in this case, Abraham Lincoln) lived. The author writes with the pen of prevailing political correctness rather than the quill of historic perspective. President Lincoln was flawed; he was human to be sure. Mr. Dilorenzo gives an image of something much less than what facts presented by critical and respected historians present. The only thing "new" about "A New Look at Abraham Lincoln" is the avoidance of objective truths. As for "an Unnecessary War", I'll defer to Shelby Foote and the late Bruce Catton on that. They have much, much more expertise and indepth knowledge and can present far more articulate arguments on why Mr. Dilorenzo is incorrect.
What I had hoped for and expected was a fresh perspective on Abraham Lincoln and his administration. What I got was a whiff of biased garbage.
| 
