Rating: 
Summary: Revisionist, or just anti-nationalist?
Review: We have a memorial of Abraham Lincoln in the middle of Washington D.C. Has he earned it? Author Thomas J. DiLorenzo probably would say "absolutely not." DiLorenzo's historical analysis actually should not come as much of a surprise at all -- he has meticulously researched this topic. For instance, it should be no surprise that the Lincoln administration severely infringed on civil rights during the War Between the States. Mere critics of Lincoln were summarily jailed and even exiled (such as the most vocal Lincoln opponent, Clement Vallandigham). Also, the South had legitimate grievances that should have -- could have -- been settled peacefully, including, certainly, slavery. Lincoln's love affair with Hamilton-esque Whiggery was a major point of contention of the two (North and South) regions. Southerners opposed this system of high tariffs, a national banking system, and [federal] subsidies for internal improvements. Lincoln also believed that the right of secession -- virtually considered sacrosanct until his administration -- was not a "right" at all, and that the states "existed at the behest of the federal government." This, DiLorenzo argues, is so contrary to the established principles of the American Founding as to defy description. What may be surprising are some of the conclusions DiLorenzo has drawn from his research. He makes the (very persuasive) case that Lincoln alone is responsible for the virtual demise of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian federalism. Historians can trace the centralization of power in Washington D.C. right to Lincoln. He indicts Lincolnian policies as "mercantilist," equating them with the economics of the European powers of the [then] recent past and present. Regarding slavery, the author states that Lincoln had no real interest in emancipation, and that the Emancipation Proclamation was merely a political gimmick. After all, it had no real power, and didn't even free those slaves in the North. He provides evidence that one of Lincoln's "solutions" to the slave "problem" was colonization -- that is, sending blacks back to Africa or other areas such as Haiti. DiLorenzo concludes that war was not necessary to resolve the situation on the 1860s. Secession was a right established in the Founding, and the states that wished to secede should have been left alone to do so. Slavery could have (would have, actually) been done away with gradually through compensation as was the case in Europe and other areas in the Americas. Indeed, compensation would have cost the federal gov. MUCH less than what the Civil War had cost the country. (And not just in the number of dead, which DiLorenzo equates to 8 million total given the pop. of the US today.) Ultimately, if the South had been left alone, they would most likely have re-entered the Union at a later time since slavery would have been abolished -- peacefully -- and the North would have been tempered by the South's secession, and after a new evaluation of Jeffersonian principles. Critics of Lincoln like DiLorenzo are not new, perhaps just obscure. I recommend reading the works of Frank L. Klement, who, some 40-50 years ago was considered "a revisionist" for his criticisms of Lincoln and his defense of "Copperheadism."
Rating:
Summary: An interesting read
Review: This book is an enlightening look at Abraham Lincoln, dispelling the myths that surround him as the Great Emancipator. It is excellently researched and footnoted, and moderately well-written. As one reader pointed out, in a negative review, the author does not mention the atrocities commited by the South or other leaders. But that is not its point; presenting a truer portrait of Lincoln is. To this end, he accomplishes his goal. Lincoln was no saint, and the North was not acting out of altruism for the slaves. Yes, the slaves were freed (not by the Emancipation Proclamation, as we were all taught), but this could have been accomplished, as in most countries, without a devastating war. Read this book if you want a more complete picture of Lincoln.
Rating:
Summary: Real History Revealed....
Review: So we finally get a real look at the most beloved of American Presidents. Anyone who has really done any reading on the Lincoln years in the White House will see the truth revealed here. This is not the white-washed revisionist history that we are taught in our public school system..this is the real story. The facts are well documented in this book. Mr. Lincoln was the most dangerous of all our presidents. He ignored the Constitution, destroyed anyone who was against his policies, and side stepped our court system completely. Newspaper editors were imprisoned..without charges, political opponents were arrested and deported. Favors in the form of jobs were given to his supporters..regardless of competence. This book is worth the read. Someone has finally put all the information in an easy to read form.Mr Lincoln murdered hundreds of thousands of Americans and lied to all the American people about the reasons for the war...it was economics not slavery or saving the Union.
Rating: 
Summary: A shocking clarification of history
Review: A shocking revelation that his heavily footnoted. Thus, it isn't just a diatribe from the author, but well researched and documented. Reading this book is a must for all of you who believe in Constitutional rights, highlighting the 10th amendment. It also draws interesting parallels to how the birth of the Republican party actually contributed to the growth of big, and thus, highly intrusive government. Yes, the Republican party. A must and very quick read at some 270 pages.
Rating:
Summary: Lincoln exposed
Review: If you are like most Americans who think the Civil War was fought to free the slaves and save the Union, think again dear readers. The author brings a mountain of evidence in support of the following: 1. The North was a racist as the South. Witness the discrimantory Black Code laws enacted in several Northern states... before the war! Abolishtionists had no political power.
2. Secession from the Union was accepted legal and political doctrine prior to 1860. Lincoln stood this on its head so it wouldn't interfere with the war against the "rebels".
3. Lincoln's political agenda required a strong central government, in direct contrast to the Jeffersonian view of the government at its founding.
4. Lincoln and the Union armies waged war on civilians. Today we call that war crimes.
5. Lincoln ingnored the Constitution and Bill of Rights to squash opposition to the war... in the North! Thousands were jailed without trial and newspapers were censored.
6. The real cause of the war was taxes and a change in the balance of power to the Northern states ensuring the South would continue to bear the brunt of federal taxes for the forseeable future.
7. There's much more besides the above..... The author makes a convincing case that Lincoln's agenda for a strong central government was a key factor in his "saving the Union" stance and thus the war itself. While slavery was ended after the war, so were the checks and balances designed to hold federal power at bay. Thus at the end of the war, the states were no longer sovereign, the federal government was. This laid the ground work for the leviathan government we live with today. And it was done at the point of a gun. Not very democratic. With regard to some of the reviewers who panned this book, there are a few common threads. Here goes: 1. This is revisionist history - If anything, this book (among several others) sets the record straight.
2. Can't be true, doesn't jibe with Lincoln's rhetoric - Lenin and Mao had lovely rhetoric too.
3. Emancipation Proclamation - Lincoln only freed those slaves in areas under CONFEDERATE control. Slaves in areas under Union control were still slaves.
4. The author has an agenda - This may be news to some folks, but everyone has an agenda. The question is not "What is the author's agenda?", but rather "Are the author's claims true?". On the back cover of the book jacket is the question "Why didn't we know this before?". Why indeed. The simple answer is that a war fought over slavery sounds a lot better than a war over tax policy. Also, a war fought over slavery sounds better than a war fought to end the several state's sovereignty over the federal government. There are other reasons I could give as well, but you get the point. .... My quibbles with this book you ask? The author takes Lincoln to task for supporting colonization of blacks outside the USA. He is right in that the case made for colonization was not a moral one. However, given the rampant bigotry against blacks, this seemed like the most humane solution for blacks at the time. Also, the book is repetitive in some places.
For those of you who take your liberty seriously, this book is for you. Also, students of American history should read this book. There's plenty here for you to mull over and give you pause. Lastly, to those that think Lincoln walked on water.... approach this book with an open mind, you might think otherwise afterwards.
Rating:
Summary: Thank You, Dr. DiLorenzo!
Review: The Lincoln myth has been perpetuated so long that its tentacles drape down over contemporary American culture and block our vision of both the past and the present. Dr. DiLorenzo is not some half-cocked, red-neck quack, he is a thoughtful and objective scholar, who has hacked off a few tentacles to give us a better view of the war between the states, Lincoln's agenda and its massive implications for us today. If you love liberty, you should read this book.
Also, check out Charles Adams, In the Course of Human Events.
Buy them as gifts for a public school teacher! Brian B from NV
Rating:
Summary: Certainly a must read for every citizen
Review: Where to start? One thing that comes through loud and clear after reading this book is that virtually every problem that one sees in our current government started under Lincoln or his imediate successors. Like most Americans, I was taught in the public schools of what a great president Lincoln was. The parts in this book that disturbed me -- at times enraged me -- were the abuses that the Union army inflicted on the Southern citizenry. You think what Osama bin Laden's minions did to us was terrorism? Read about the terrorism by Generals Sherman and Sheridan. That was the worst terrorism ever perpetrated on American soil. The "Civil War" was never about slavery. Its roots were in economics. The South simply did not want to continue to fund a government it saw as abusive to it. They wanted to exercise their "duty", as Jefferson would say, to "throw off" that abusive government. If Lincoln were alive today, he'd most certainly be characterized as a white supremacist. He had no pining to see the black man freed; he only wanted to foment an insurrection in the South. But, as the adage goes, the "victors write the history". That's why generations of Americans have a positive image of "honest Abe". With Lincoln's presidency, this country ceased being a republic and became one in search of empire. Professor Dilorenzo's field is economics, and he does make the case in this book for the economic underpinnings of the war. The Southern states could have left the union peacefully, but Lincoln would have none of it. What happened during "Reconstruction" is probably the most shameful episode in American history, and Dilorenzo explores this period well. Most reviews critical of this book try to paint Dilorenzo as some kind of extremist with some axe to grind. I don't believe that to be the case. But some myths die hard -- and those surrounding Lincoln are some of the most entrenched.
Rating:
Summary: Was skeptical, now convinced
Review: I first heard about the book when it was promoted on Rush Limbaugh's show by Walter Williams. I didn't know what to think at first about the things they were saying. It went against the myths I had learned growing up. I got the book and now I place Lincoln lower than Clinton on my list of least favorite presidents. Any political conservative who wants to understand when things began going wrong with our federal govenment and why it has become so big simply has to read this book to find out. Although the author uses Lincoln's own words to show what kind of person Lincoln was politically, it was Lincoln's actions that had me very angry by the end of the book. Aside from the ultimate effect of the Emancipation Proclamation which had nothing to do at the time for caring about the condition of slaves but was a war maneuver 18 months into the war to free a select amount of slaves, Lincoln did very little that was good for this country. The only ultimate good as I just mentioned was something he did basically by accident. I mentioned the book to a friend of mine. He felt that liberals were doing all they can to attack our Founding Fathers and that this was just contributing to it. Frankly, I can't imagine a liberal attacking Lincoln's politics, they gotta love his big govenment schemes! The only thing Lincoln was a founding father for was big govenment. It's odd seeing some of the one star reviewers still thinking the war was about slavery or that this book is some "New Age" viewpoint (as one put it). It shows how engrained the myths surrounding Lincoln and his war has become. It also shows how necessary this book is to break those myths.
Rating: 
Summary: Some good moments, but mostly a bloated political rant
Review: I heard about this book when I scanned the car radio and came across Mr. Dilorenzo being interviewed by Walter Williams on the Rush Limbaugh show. The topic appealed enough to my libertarian-leaning mindset that I ended up buying the book. It does have a few merits, as it reminds readers--many of whom probably know nothing beyond the whitewashed version of Lincoln from their public-school history classes--that Lincoln was a power-hungry opportunist, really not much different from most politicians. From the practical meaninglessness and ineffectiveness of the Emancipation Proclamation, to Lincoln's wanton disregard of the Constitution, to his complete lack of interest in the slaves, we are reminded of some of the less savory parts of Lincoln's character. Dilorenzo also makes a plausible argument that if not for Northern meddling in the South following the war, the reactionary mentality that gave rise to the Klan may never have occurred. Further, his analysis into Andrew Johnson's rejection of the civil rights bill casts a rarely used light on Lincoln's successor, who usually is blindly branded a racist. And his examination into the atrocities committed by the Union army in the South during the war is already well documented elsewhere but well worth repeating, lest anybody think that what General Sherman and his ilk did to the women, children, and property of the South is any different from how, say, China invaded, raped, and killed the people of Tibet. Indeed, if Lincoln knew the level of abuses being committed by his generals, and chose to do nothing about it, he was a monstrous human being. But that's about all I can recommend from the book. The rest of it is filled with selectively chosen historical facts, lots of speculation, and unabashed partisanship trying to present itself as objective analysis. For example, Dilorenzo makes a big stink about Lincoln's white-supremacist views, but he fails to emphasize that Lincoln's view was common then. In fact, Thomas Jefferson himself once wrote about the supposed inferiority of the black race, yet Dilorenzo lionizes Jefferson. He also draws plenty of attention to the Union army's atrocities but fails to mention the northern cities that the South burned, not to mention the unspeakable actions Southerners took against captured black Union soldiers. The lynchings of pro-Union Southerners or the Southern censorship of anti-secessionist mail before the war? You won't read it here. Dilorenzo even contradicts himself, for at one point in the book, he says the North didn't care about the slavery issue, but later he says the North was happy to let the South secede because the North wanted no association with slaveholders. Similarly, he states the case for secession throughout the book and then complains about the "orchestrated" secession of Virginia's western counties into a new Union state. And some of his claims are downright ludicrous, such as when he says that most Northerners were shocked by the Emancipation Proclamation "because they had not been told by their government that they were fighting and dying by the tens of thousands" to free the slaves. So most Northerners never figured out that slavery was one catalyst of the war, until the Proclamation showed that Lincoln had pulled a fast one on them? Get real. If Dilorenzo could take off his partisan blinders for a moment, he would probably see that the manner in which Lincoln silenced dissent against his political views in a time of war is not all that different from the way the Bush administration today is posing real threats to all Americans' Constitutional liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. Dilorenzo could also look back to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II when a much more dangerous man than Lincoln--FDR--lived in the White House. But he doesn't, preferring to single out Lincoln as seemingly the sole enemy of liberty in the nation's history. The author can complain all he wants about Lincoln being the cause of every evil in today's society, but Lincoln didn't invent the idea of a powerful central government, nor has he been the worst in terms of expanding federal power. Despite all the damage to the 10th Amendment the war caused, coupled with the probably illegitimate ratification of the 13th, people like Dilorenzo overlook the good things that came out of the war--an end to slavery, and a greater unification that allowed us to become the wealthy, strong, influential country we are today. Yes, the power has swung far too much in favor of federal control over the states today, but the Founding Fathers themselves learned from the Articles of Confederation that some semblance of a centralized power was necessary to keep the country from fractalizing. A middle ground was needed. Yes, Lincoln went too far past that middle ground, and one can even argue that the Union had no right to tell Southerners what they could do with their private property (i.e., slaves), but the alternative could have been one in which a Europe-like amalgamation of separate nations arose--you'd need a passport to travel from one state to another, each possibly with its own currency, and all prone to squabbling with each other in a balkanized mess. After all, Southerners didn't fight for their Confederacy; they fought for Virginia or South Carolina or Georgia. I'm not sure that's what the Founding Fathers envisioned. If there's a lesson to be learned from this book, it's that we shouldn't blindly champion our political leaders or believe everything we read in the history books. But it also offers another inadvertent lesson: Read critically and with a good deal of speculation, so that you can separate a solid argument from an unevenly and deceptively stacked political rant. Because that's what "The Real Lincoln" is.
Rating:
Summary: AN ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF A TYRANT
Review: THIS BOOK IS THE BEST BOOK I'VE READ IN MANY YRS OF HISTORY ABOUT THIS COUNTRY. IM SO GLAD THAT A MAN FROM THE NORTH HAS FINALLY PUT THE LINCOLN MYTH MAKERS ON THE DEFENSIVE. THIS MAN WAS A TYRANT AND A KILLER OF INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN OF THE SOUTH. HE WAS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER HAD BY THIS COUNTRY. I PRAISE PROFESSOR DILORENZO FOR HIS ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF HISTORY. ONLY THE DEMOGOGUES OF A SOCIALIST SOCIETY WILL SCORN THIS BOOK AND I HOPE IT THROWS THE TRUTH IN THEIR FACE, THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO RUN AND HIDE NOW. THEY HAVE NO SKIRT OF LINCOLN TO RUN BEHIND AND SNEER FROM, BECAUSE THEIR HERO HAS FINALLY BEEN UNMASKED AND REVEALED UNTO THE WORLD, AND WHAT A MONSTER HE WAS!
| 
