Rating: 
Summary: When Did Our Country Become Allot Less Free?
Review: I've always wondered when our country truly started to become something that our Founding Fathers never intended it to be. After reading The Real Lincoln, now I know. If you ever wondered how and when our country started to take your money and give it to those that they thought deserved it more (the start of corporate welfare); if you ever wondered when the states, being closer to the people, lost the right to determine how each would exist (the end of states' rights); if you ever wondered if the Founding Fathers intended to allow states the right of secession (they did); if you ever wondered how and when the idea of a private central bank took hold; if you ever wondered how and when the federal government began to tax you to death; and if you ever wondered when the USA became the worlds policeman; then you must read "The Real Lincoln". The best part of the book cleared up everything for me. Professor DiLorenzo quotes General Lee in a December 15, 1866 response to a letter received from the great historian Lord Acton:While I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only are essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.
Rating: 
Summary: PARTISAN revisionism revisited
Review: Thomas Dilorenzo is a partisan writer not because he was a northerner, but because he fulfills the conditions needed for one, as set forth by "Webster's New World College Dictionary Fourth Ed.": Partisan: Noun - 1. a person who takes the part of or strongly supports one side, party, or person; often, specif., an unreasoning, emotional adherent
Adjective - 2. Blindly or unreasonably devoted This is not to say that Mr. Dilorenzo does not possess validity, but that he examines issues from a single point of view, which all serious historians from Beard to McPherson (who quite honestly critiqued Lincoln in his volume "Battlecry of Freedom") to Schlesinger attempted to avoid doing. When facts that do not support his thesis emerge, Mr. DiLorenzo twists or does not care to mention them. Mr. DiLorenzo can not be considered status quo, but neither may he be considered correct. For the benefit of certain reviewers, I have news for you. We DO live in a democracy. This is from a B.A. in political science. Even Mr. DiLorenzo admits that the country is (or was before the Civil War, as he takes pains to point out) a democracy. Granted, non-democratic elements may be a part of the United States, but at its core and direction this government is eminently democratic. I think this foundational FACT forms a solid foundation to "attach" the author. As Bolieau says: "Un sot trouve toujours un plus sot, qui l'admire." "We must remember" (without citing irrelevant and disrespectful religious references) that the most dangerous people are those who feel that only their truths valid and that there are no alternatives to their positions. I encourage people to look at all controversy and conflicts from the perspective of however many "sides" (not to borrow from Hegel) may be involved. You may then know "just enough to be dangerous" to those issuing propaganda.
Rating:
Summary: I'll keep it simple
Review: As my previous review was changed twice by whomever it is that edits these things, let me put it this way: If you are a liberal, you will hate this book. If you are a conservative, you will love it. Its a shame that I have to make such a bland review, but apparently someone didn't like what I had to say.
Rating:
Summary: What makes DiLorenzo a 'partisan'?
Review: It seems that the common thread amoung reviewers who rate this book with one star is calling the author a 'partisan'. Well, he isn't a Southerner, so it can't be that, so just what makes him a partisan and other authors like Lincoln-worshipping McPherson not a 'partisan'. Is it only because DiLorenzo isn't status quo? Also, for the benefit of a certain reviewer from Arlington, I have news for you. We DO NOT live in a democracy. I thought anyone who has taken basic political science knew that. And after making such a blatant blunder, he then goes on to use it as a basis for the rest of his totally false argument to attach the author. We must remember - some people read the Bible and still don't believe it, and it Jesus Christ himself appeared to them and said 'I am Jesus', they STILL wouldn't believe that either! And then there are some people who THINK they know all about American history and government, but actually know just enough to be dangerous. That applies to most of the 1-star reviewers.
Rating:
Summary: Sic Semper Tyrannus -- "Thus Ever to Tyrants."
Review:
John Wilkes Booth's words as he leapt onto the stage after shooting President Abraham Lincoln fatally, and breaking his leg in the process.
But, was Lincoln truly a tyrant? You be the judge, after reading this book. We know a few things from history: Afer swearing on the Bible to "protect and defend the Constitution" (not the nation, or the Union) as all presidents are and have ever been required to do prior to taking office,
he suspended the Bill of Rights, including Habeus Corpus early in his administration and throughout his tenure in office and subsequently imprisoned thousands of politicians, editors, publishers and ordinary citizens in the North who disagreed with his policies in Lafayette prison (and elsewhere) without trial, effectively silencing his opposition by force. He pushed South Carolina into firing on Fort Sumpter so that he could have a Cause Celebre, and then invaded the South with an armed force. To free the slaves? Hardly. In a well-known letter to Horace Greeley, he stated bluntly, "If I could save the union without freeing a single slave, I would do so; If I could save the union by freeing some slaves and not others, I would do so." Lincoln, in all of his political history many times denounced abolition and in fact stated clearly that he did not think the races were equal. The result of his "Emancipation Proclamation"(which was unconstitutional): Not a single slave was freed. It applied only to slaves in rebel-held territory. His objective, stated many times, was to "Save the Union." In fact, the war that cost the several states a total of more than 600,000 lives out of a 30 million population (given today's population that would equal 5 million deaths -- 100 times those lost in Viet Nam) was not about slavery at all -- that was merely a peripheral matter --it was to prevent those states who had joined the Union voluntarily from leaving it voluntarily, as every scholar of that day and this agrees they had every legal right to do. In fact, on the occasion of the Louisiana Purchase, the Northeastern States were so incensed that many thought seriously of doing the same thing, and no president except Lincoln would have even remotely considered keeping the family together at the point of a bayonet. The war was fought over a difference in political philosophies: Lincoln and the Republicans (and previously the Whigs) favored a
large, powerful central government. The Democrats in those days (a different tribe than today's Democrats) favored federalism -- in other words, state's rights and a weak, decentralized government (how times have changed). They thought that the United States was, and should be, a collection of sovereign nations, and the federal government simply their agent, its powers closely delineated in the Constitution. The Southern States nearly won their freedom in the First Battle of Manassus, and if "Stonewall" Jackson had only had his way, in this first battle of the "civil" war, it would all have been over. But, President Jefferson Davis refused to give him the 10,000 troops he needed to pursue his victory and take Washington. Davis later reflected it was one of his "great mistakes." Lincoln was, in fact a dictator, although he is usually described as a "benevolent" or even a "great dictator." He usurped powers that presidents since him have taken to themselves, using his precedent, that are totally unconstitutional -- such as "war powers." The Constitution does not allow for extra-constitutional powers for the president, or anyone else under any circumstance. In fact, Lincoln got the government he wanted. His was the first income tax. Now, look at it! And a great central monolithic federal giant over whom no on has any true control, least of all a president. Would it have been better if we had followed Jefferson's or Jackson's version of what our nation should be? Could a confederation of sovereign states with the federal government simply acting as their agent have coped with the world we live in today? A world without federal land grabs such as BLM and the national parks (which are extra-constitutional), with no huge federal socialist social programs such as social security, or medicare, or medicade, or the huge military establishment we now enjoy? How about the Interstate Highway network? We cannot re-write history, and our guesses, if we could, knowing only what he knew at the time, might be no better than Lincoln's.
Whether Booth acted too late to stop a tyrant before he caused 600,000 deaths in battle in the worst war this country has ever endured, many more cripples disabled for life and the almost total destruction of the Southern States who 'enjoyed' martial law for another dozen years after their defeat, under carpetbaggers; or whether booth was truly the monster he was made out to be at the time, and "Father Abraham" the finest president we have ever known, which many believe today, is something that we will probably never know for sure. There is this: Every other Western nation that held slaves, including Great Britain, Brazil and many others stopped the practice at about the same time without any bloodshed at all. The United States certainly could have as well--the methods were well-known by Lincoln and others. "The War of the Rebellion," as it was then called, was not about slavery, it was a tragedy for which we are still paying and will continue to pay. Had it never occurred, and the Confederate States simply been allowed to go their way in peace, is it not probable that they would have eventually rejoined the Union? For myself, I doubt that Lincoln was the scheming monster portrayed here, I think that like many others who have made monumental errors that have cost humanity great losses, he was well-meaning in his intent, and possibly precipitate in his passions. But that is only my gut feeling. I had ancestors who fought on both sides and am a Northwesterner, so my view is about as neutral as you can get. This is a book to read, and then make up your own mind. It seems well-researched, and will certainly be contrroversial. Joseph Pierre
Rating:
Summary: In Adoration of False Idols
Review: Did the other reviewers read the same book I did? Unless Mr. DiLorenzo is just making it up as he goes along, Lincoln is one false idol we should be rid of, the sooner the better. For, if even half of what the author says is true, he must be ranked as our WORST president.
We all cherish certain ¡§heroes¡¨ in our lives, whether we actually knew them or not. For years, I had a picture of Lincoln on my bookshelf. They are like friends whom, we feel, we would be betraying if we turned against them. But if our friendship is based on a lie, then it¡¦s time to end it. However painful, let¡¦s demolish all false idols! Mr. DiLorenzo presents overwhelming, unequivocal evidence that Abraham Lincoln is one of them. To give the reader a taste of that evidence, I offer the following:
Although he once referred to slavery as a ¡§monstrous injustice¡¨, Lincoln opposed political or social equality of the races.
He supported the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, whereby all slaves who had managed to escape to the North were, upon capture, to be returned to their Southern slave-owners.
He wanted to colonize blacks by deporting them because he did not believe the two races could ever integrate or live as equals.
From his own mouth, we know he never fought the war in order to end slavery but to preserve the union, and was no friend to the abolitionists, the real champions of black freedom.
He supported high tariffs which effectively bled wealth from the South to swell the coffers of the North (¡§Even before the Morrill tariff of 1860...Southerners were paying about 87% of all federal taxes, even though they had less than half the population of the North,¡¨ and they benefited less than the North from the expenditure of those taxes).
His ¡§great¡¨ Emancipation Proclamation did not free one single slave since it officially freed only those in areas controlled by Confederate troops, not those in areas occupied by Northern troops, including New Orleans, leading Seward, his own secretary of state, to remark that they were ¡§emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free¡¨ (hey, let¡¦s have President Bush declare China free of Communism).
After a uprising of the Sioux, who happened to be starving at the time and committed the unmitigated injustice of revolting because the federal government refused to pay them for a large land-purchase, he approved of the execution of 39 Indians, selected at random¡Xthe largest mass execution in US history.
After the war, adult male ex-slaves were given the right to vote (blacks in several Northern states still could not), while white male Southerners were disenfranchised¡Xa great way to poison race relations.
Between 1800 and 1860 dozens of countries ended slavery peacefully by compensating slave-owners and other means. Why couldn¡¦t our Great Emancipator? It certainly would have been much cheaper than paying the costs of a war that took over 620,000 lives and destroyed 40% of the nation¡¦s economy.
Until 1861 most commentators, North and South, took it for granted that states had a right to secede (New England almost seceded three times but never went through with it). This should surprise no one: what, after all, had the American colonists done but secede from England? (Need I mention the Declaration of Independence?) Were they about to form a new union by declaring that no state had a right to secede from it? The right to secession was even taught to the cadets at West Point during Lincoln¡¦s time. Thus, almost all of the top military commanders of the war were so indoctrinated, even those who went on to butcher the South for exercising this right. Lincoln himself once stated: ¡§Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better¡¨ (January 12, 1848). Quite a few Lincoln scholars, even those who apologize for him, have labeled him ¡§a dictator¡¨. Why? Because he:
Launched a military invasion without the consent of Congress (only Congress has the right to declare war).
Suspended the rights of habeas corpus, leading to illegal arrest and detention.
Imprisoned thousands¡Xthousands!¡Xof Northern citizens without trial for merely opposing his policies, including dozens of newspaper editors, among them the grandson of Francis Scott Key (goodbye freedom of the press).
Nationalized the railroads (political bribery and corruption, inefficiency and waste, here we come!). Interestingly, for obvious reasons the Confederate Constitution outlawed government-funded ¡§internal improvements¡¨, which are best carried out by the private sector.
Used Federal troops to interfere in elections.
Imprisoned an opposition Congressman for exercising his freedom of speech and then deported him; also imprisoned the majority of Maryland¡¦s political leaders for favoring peaceful secession.
Managed closely the war, which means he must be held responsible for the brutal policies of Sherman and Sheridan of looting and burning whole Southern towns, and slaughtering many non-combatants (old men, women and children), not to mention destroying their means to survive. H.L. Mencken would have loved this book. Read it! It is well-argued, specific and, most important, well-documented. If, after reading it, you still think Lincoln was our greatest president, then I won¡¦t bother to argue the fictionality of your other false idols¡Xnamely, Santa Claus, Cinderella and the tooth fairy. Ironically, Martin Luther King gave his ¡§I Have A Dream¡¨ speech before the Lincoln memorial. In truth, he would have done well to have spat upon it, as Lincoln did upon the lives of thousands of innocent Americans. There could have hardly been a more menacing, destructive president¡Xto both whites and blacks alike¡Xthan our ¡§Great Emancipator¡¨, who definitely happened to be, by some malice of fate, the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. Did Lincoln do anything good for America? Yes, he did: he took an early departure from it.
Rating:
Summary: Revisited Revisionism
Review: Mr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, while no doubt the possessor of a perspective entailing some few valid points, has presented a blatantly biased partisan view in this work. While there remain too many issues to address within a single review (most easily answered), I would like to briefly tackle the fundamental topic of which the book and several reviews revolve around: a central Federal government vs. a loose union of essentially sovereign states. Historically, this issue grew from the split of Jefferson and Hamilton and was generally responsible for the development of the two-party political system in America. Until the Civil War (or more specifically, the Congressional sessions occurring during it), this debate raged between the Democratic Party and their various rival party, from the Federalists to the Republicans. A concise argument against a decentralized government and the logic of the Confederacy can be shown in two focal points:
1. The government of a loose confederacy of sovereign states was at one time implemented. Between the end of the Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution, the government existed under the Articles of Confederation. This lame duck government consistently failed or measured close to collapse (Shay's Rebellion), enough that the "founding fathers" intended reform. To keep the argument succinct, this led to the Constitution, which emphatically and decisively structured a centralized government.
2. Rebellion, not secession, was considered a right. This can be verified in a simple reading of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Secession, the ultimate example of states' rights, is a concept that undermines the fundamental ideals of Democracy. This concept of secession basically entails the rights of a minority to break apart from the majority whenever the latter would not concede to its demands. Democracy can not exist under this idea as a unified whole governed through majority rule would quickly shatter in several factions. The Confederacy itself, to any active historian, was seen to be splintering and nearly collapsing at several points due to its own fundamental basis (examine the relation of Davis to several state governors, in particular). Lincoln, by refusing to concede to this powerful minority faction, perpetuated and ensured the survival of democracy in the United States and its form government. In doing so, he obeyed his legal Constitutional mandate of protecting the Constitution and Union by following executive powers given to him. Like several politicians before (namely Jackson) and after him (too numerous to mention), Lincoln made legal use of I, 8, 18 (the elastic clause) to justify any actions which may be considered "stretching" his executive powers. In summarily conclusion of this topic, I would suggest that all concerned take the time to fully investigate the issue for themselves, as it is too wide and deep a debate to adopt any single, complete stance on.
I would like to attempt to clarify some few other points raised in the reader reviews. Firstly, the "Whig economic plan" (first proposed by Hamilton, a Federalist) was not the sole motivation for the war. This plan, admittedly against the interest of the primarily - southern agrarian group, was structured to help the United States progress in accord with the market/industrialization "revolution" and its commercial supporters. Again, this (inevitable?) split of interests dates back to Jefferson and Hamilton. This was hardly a partisan issue though, as the election results of 1860 prove. It may be better termed at this point in history as a sectional issue. The majority of the country, namely both the North and West, approved of the "Whig economic plan," which had been up to that point blocked by Southern control of the government (see Buchanan, "Virginian Dynasty") representing elite minority interests, not including non-slaveholding southern white citizens. Secondly, Lincoln "as righteous opponent of slavery" does indeed have "roots in the man's career. Lincoln's personal feelings of anti-slavery are well-documented and possess no relevance towards his political agenda. I would agree that Lincoln's role in opposition to slavery did play as role as emancipation was a major campaign platform in his second campaign for the presidency in 1864, which he won after nearly four years of the war had been experienced. I would suggest this is "a reason why genuine abolitionists, like Frederick Douglass" endorsed him. Indeed, as Lincoln's second inaugural ceremony, Douglass was personally received by Lincoln and actively participated in the ceremonies. And lest we forget, Lincoln's personal efforts and sponsorship did produce the Thirteenth Amendment. Thirdly, the statement that "what is not mentioned in the Constitution remains a right of the states" (known as the Tenth Amendment) can not be applied in the issue of secession as the Constitution expressly delegates the power to preserve the Union and Constitution to the executive office, including the right to cease treasonable activity (in a military sense), as in the case of Clement Vallandigham. Even contemporary secessionist southerners, including Davis, Stephens, and Toombs, recognized this and formally rejected the Constitution in the name of rebellion to justify their cause. Fourthly, I find no records of Mason, Slidell, or any other Confederate diplomat formally proposing an end to slavery in exchange for foreign recognition. However, the point is moot, as the Palmerston ministry (the British government of the time) never seriously considered recognition of the Confederacy in "exchange" for the discontinuance of slavery. Indeed, in my personal view, the principled men of the British government would have considered such a form of persuasion to be blackmail of a sort. Fifthly, indisputable statistics do show that the vast majority of white Southerners did not own slaves. However, as can be simply and obviously noted in the simple number of Confederate soldiers, the vast majority of Southerners supported slavery.
I seem to have neared the limit for a review. A final piece of advice: search for an objective view of history. Read this if you will, but balance it with other historians' perspectives before accepting Mr. DiLorenzo's theses. Better yet, ignore this work and explore serious studies of the Civil War, regardless of their position.
Rating:
Summary: Revisionist be damned
Review: I have often read civil war history and thought that a lot things just don't add up. Dilorenzo has shed a great deal of light on the cause of the war between the states. My opinion
of Lincoln has definitely changed! What an eye opener!
Rating:
Summary: Endorsed by a Holocaust revisionist... yikes
Review: I don't have a lot to add to the previous reviews (certainly enough has been said), but BOY, am I anxious about the fact that this book's lead endorsement is from Joseph Sobran. He's the guy who no longer works for the National Review, following his extraordinary statement that "there was nothing unique in what the Nazis did." Yes, this frank and open Holocaust revisionist now says DiLorenzo has created a "devastating critique of Lincoln." Well, I'm more than a little alarmed at that. Among other things in this distorted rewrite of history, consider that the segregationist remarks he cites were early in Lincoln's career. Like many great men, when Lincoln found himself in the hot seat, he saw a new perspective, and stood up for what he believed was right. Not coincidentally, in the process he met and came to know Frederick Douglas. For DiLorenzo to nonetheless focus on what Lincoln had said decades earlier is disingenuous to say the least. Never trust a book that's endorsed by someone who says the Nazis weren't all that bad...
Rating:
Summary: Just plain wrong
Review: I agree, the guy seems to have an ax to grind.
Lincoln's hagiographers didn't do much service to history, what you need is a balanced, scholarly account, not a partisan political treatise. Read David Herbert Donald's biography: there you can better understand president Lincoln.
|
