Rating: 
Summary: Read other books on this subject.
Review: If you read this book, I would suggest that you do some homework and check the validity of it's contents. Read other books, do some research and then judge this book. It's easy to misinterpret and misrepresent history and this book does a lot of that. I've wrote before to stay away from this book, but as like any book, read it and come up with your own conclusions and opinions. Realize that this book was written with an agenda to find anything negative about Abraham Lincoln, and through his acts of picking out random quotes, taking quotes out of context, and "fudging" facts, DiLorenzo does a good job of that.
Rating: 
Summary: The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo
Review: I entered the reading of this book with some apprehension. I assumed it would be overwhemlingly bias. After reading it, and finding out the truths of the Emmancipation Proclomation, the 14th and 15th ammendments, and the martial law imposed on institutes of publishing that disagreed with Lincoln's agenda, and the fact that his belief wasn't of racial equality at all, it made me rethink my view on politics and the history of the Republican Party completely.
Rating:
Summary: Critics without substance
Review: I read this book out of curiosity after following several months of a strongly worded and sometimes downright vitriolic debate over it being waged in national publications (among them National Review, World Net Daily, Lew Rockwell, and the Claremont Institute). I have since joined in that debate, mostly in defense of DiLorenzo's work as I find it to be generally well supported in its efforts to document and rebut historical myths about Lincoln. I also find serious logical shortcomings in the overwhelming majority of criticisms, many of which are repeated here on Amazon's book reviews. A summary of these criticisms and a brief examination of their charges will suffice for the purposes of this review to demonstrate my point: 1. It has been said by many that DiLorenzo's scholarship is shoddy and contains multiple errors. This charge has been made by virtually all of his critics and in many reviewers on Amazon. As any competent reader will observe, the vast majority of critics here make this claim without providing so much as one single example of an error to support themselves. The old latin saying applies in each of these cases: "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur" - that which is gratuitously asserted may be equally dismissed. But what of the "professional" critics in publications such as NR and Claremont? I've read virtually all of these and find that they all have one thing in common: they rehash the exact same 3 or 4 examples of what they call "errors" over and over and over and over again, never bothering to move beyond them if for no other reason than the fact that they don't have anything else to make their cases on. One of the "errors" they cite is a single one-line Henry Clay quote that was inadvertantly attributed to Lincoln but has been corrected in every subsequent edition of DiLorenzo's book. Another is a simple typographical error of amazingly inconsequential relevance. A third is not so much an error at all, but rather a disputed interpretation of a statement made by Roy Basler. Curiously enough, not a single one of these very few yet constantly rehashed "errors," be they validly described as such or not, alters or significantly effects ANY part of the book's overall thesis about Lincoln. 2. A lot of the reviewers, both professional historians and readers, respond to DiLorenzo's arguments by pointing out what they consider equal corresponding offenses by the confederacy. While no reason exists to shy away from critically examining the faults of the confederacy where they are historically demonstrable, to cite them as responses to the faults of Lincoln is a logical fallacy known as Tu Quoque, or "you too." This fallacy occurs when one responds to an affirmative assertion with an unrelated counterassertion that, while failing to alter or materially dispute the original assertion, seeks to impugn it through a charge of hypocrisy. Most of the arguments that fit the line of "DiLorenzo says Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, but so did the confederates" fall under this category. Why? Because the attribution of a habeas corpus suspension to the CSA does not materially alter, dispute, refute, or even so much as critically consider the original affirmation that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (For the record though, both Lincoln and the CSA suspended habeas corpus. Lincoln did it unilaterally, which is unconstitutional since that power belongs to the Congress. The CSA did it by legislation through their Congress). 3. Attacking the person seems to be another popular, not to mention fallacious, tactic of DiLorenzo's critics. This has been attempted through several methods. The least offensive, though still fallacious, indulgences into ad hominem tend to challenge DiLorenzo's credibility by labelling him a "libertarian" or "public choice theorist" or "economist rather than historian." Each of these labels is probably a valid description of DiLorenzo, though none is necessarily a bad thing (after all, it's not like he's hooked up with the communist party...something that cannot be said of many civil war authors, among them James McPherson). Needless to say, none of these descriptions alter the validity of his thesis in itself. The more offensive ad hominems degrade into outright name-calling. Thomas Krannawitter of the Claremont Institute is probably the most guilty of this. His "review" of DiLorenzo was little more than a vitriolic diatribe calling him names like "half-educated boy" and the sort (which is interesting in itself considering that DiLorenzo is a widely published PhD with a dozen or so books to his name, versus Kranawitter, a relatively young holder of a simple master's degree with no substantial works to his name. Perhaps a little projection was occuring?). Others such as Ken Masugi and Richard Ferrier have similarly indulged in ad hominems against this book. In summary, I look out upon all the criticisms that have been thrown at this book, not to mention the praises. In viewing those critics I see many similarities: lots of attacks, lots of loaded terminology, lots of anger, vitriol, labelling, ideological and patriotic appeals, and even a few fibs every now and then. What I do not see among their reviews is substance.
Rating:
Summary: Revisionism of the most amateurish sort
Review: Setting aside for the moment the validity of DiLorenzo's thesis, all I can say is that this is one of the most intellectually flaccid books I have ever had the misfortune to read. DiLorenzo has been rightfully excoriated for the multitude of misquotes & erroneous citations. Based on his shoddy scholarship (a graduate school student would be drummed out of the program if her or she presented research this sloppy), his book is totally lacking in credibility. How anyone can be giving this mess 5 stars is a complete mystery to me. There is another mystery that most reviewers haven't addressed. DiLorenzo trots out the old "states' rights" argument while simultaneously condemning Lincoln for his repeated violations of the US Constitution. The implication is, of course, that the pro-slavery secessionists were those who were being true to the Constitution. In the face of the historical record, the idea that someone can seriously make that argument is absurd. The states' rights school of thought conveniently ignores the fact that the various tactics employed by the slave states totally violated the doctrine of states' rights. The slave states routinely censored the public mail to intercept abolitionist materials; the pro-slavery bloc in Congress violated the 1st Amendment for 8 years by denying citizens their right to petition & freedom of speech; the pro-slavery group in a later Congress then proceeded to ram the Fugitive Slave Act down the throats of the northern states. If the Fugitive Slave Act isn't a violation of the states' rights doctrine, then nothing is!
Most of the fire-eaters in the south seemed to have no trouble reconciling themselves to these attacks on the Constitution, as long as their interests (ie, the preservation of slavery, not states' rights) were being served. To his credit, John C. Calhoun had a difficult time with the censoring of mail & the gag rule --- he never was able to achieve an intellectual rationalization of these contradictions. DiLorenzo also contends that Lincoln engineered an unneccessary war in order to implement his hidden agenda, a latter-day Whig Party agenda which emphasized the increased centralization of government. As a good libertarian, DiLorenzo is outraged by the Whig's and their American System. Once again, the implication is that the South was on the side of decentralized government, and once again, one is left wondering exactly what US history DiLorenzo has been reading. Which two US presidents prior to Lincoln were most responsible for the centralization of the government? Surprise, they were not Whigs. With the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson (that libertarian hero) did more than any president of his era to centralize government (think about, you libertarians --- all that territory, under the direct control of the FEDERAL government, not the states; all of those territorial governors, appointed by the PRESIDENT; if that isn't centralization, what is?). The other great centralizer was Andrew Jackson, who massively increased the size of the federal government bureaucracy (and let us not forget the nullification controversy --- Jackson was prepared to OCCUPY South Carolina! Not exactly an apostle of states' rights.). Both were Southern slave-owners, neither was a Northern Whig, and they did as much as Lincoln to centralize the government, but DiLorenzo reserves his venom for Lincoln alone. He is quite adept at keeping the historical facts from getting in the way of his polemic. Overall, this is just a pathetic effort at putting forth a stale states' rights argument. Ironically DiLorenzo is so sloppy with his research and presentation that he only undermines his argument. The likes of Calhoun & Alexander Stephens must be spinning in their graves at the disservice done them by DiLorenzo. Fortunately, this book isn't nearly as long as a well-researched book would be, so the nausea it induces will subside all that much sooner.
Rating:
Summary: A true look at Lincoln
Review: I would highly recommend this book to anyone into politics and history. This book takes a different look into the history of our 16th president. You are reading about things you would never see in you public school life. After reading this book it will challenge you to look into the so called facts you were taught. This is a book that makes you read other books, to try to prove DiLorenzo wrong, but in the end you find he was right. This is also a great book if you are a political science major in college, but like all books you need to do research as said before. Again I highly recommend this book to all political and historical buffs. Those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Rating:
Summary: DiLorenzo: Friend of Big Tobacco
Review: To give you some idea of what Mr. DiLorenzo is all about, check out this book, which is available at this site. He apparently thinks it's good for society if people die young from smoking. Cancer Scam: Diversion of Federal Cancer Funds to Politics
by James T. Bennett, Thomas J. Dilorenzo Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com According to James T. Bennett and Thomas J. DiLorenzo, authors of Cancerscam, smoking can be good for society, if not for the smoker. Consider all the money the government could save, for instance, on social security if millions of people die young from smoking-related illnesses. Much of Bennett and DiLorenzo's book is taken up with their argument that the government's campaign against smoking is intrusive and unwarranted. They liken smoking to other hazardous choices such as skydiving or skateboarding and point out that there is no national campaign to educate practitioners of these activities. They then launch into an attack on the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, which they accuse of diverting funds into an antismoking program run by a left-wing public interest organization. Cigarette manufacturers and major stockholders in tobacco companies will love this book; those who deal with the medical, social, and personal fall-out from smoking, on the other hand, will find little to agree with here.
Rating:
Summary: The pulling down of Strongholds
Review: '
Whenever I see American troops toppling statues of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq, I think of this book. DiLorenzo is a one man army. Not only does he dispell
the myth which is Lincoln, he exposes this idol for
what it is, sand. Lincoln led the Executive branch in a war against the
Constitution, and won. For this our government worships
him. No wonder. All hail the CHIEF! 2 Corinthians 10, 3-5
Rating:
Summary: On sloppiness
Review: If you're not a Lincoln venerator and want to convert the heathen to the true faith, then I suggest steering away from this work. At least, be sure to double check whatever facts you pull from here first. There's a whole school of Southern authors who did a much more scholarly job of defending secession within the context of the founding documents, constitutional law and received legal opinion. DiLorenzo commits a number of errors in basic historical details. Elsewhere, he selectively uses and abuses quotes, so any layman interested in better rooting his distaste for the great tyrant in well-informed facts will be on a shakey ground if Tommy D.'s book is his only source. What's most interesting about the book are some comments made by Tommy D. and his leel frens over at one of the "libertarian" sites in regards to the book's critics. A frequent poster to the blog there, in early January he wrote an entry regarding Dr. Richard Ferrier, a critic of his at the Declaration Foundation and little Tommy's sometime-whipping boy on the blog. In his entry, Tommy D. insinuated that Dr. Ferrier, faculty member of Thomas Aquinas College and head of the Declaration Foundation, was a crude critic, grad school drop-out, etc. Furthermore, readers were led to believe that Ferrier was just one of a number of neocon beltway insiders with a well-oiled establishment machine backing him. I pointed out that none of these things were true in a private e-mail and referred him to a credible source for correction. Of course, the Tomster has gone nasty on Ferrier before in his comments. To show good faith, he could have googled Ferrier first before making unfounded comments on a popular Rothbard cult site. When I googled on Richard Ferrier recently, I found a radio interview with him archived on the Internet. In that interview, Ferrier provides his academic background and scholarly opinion of Lincoln (and no, I don't happen to share his view of the tyrant). DiLorenzo of course probably knew all of this already, but he's an inveterate slob. Slobs make distortions and then post them in public. When corrected, they don't retract their distortions and apologize, they just slob on to something else. "Oh, look at me, I'm such a sharp contrarian wit!" sez they to their fellow travellers. Alan Dershowitz can do it at Harvard, so why not Tommy D.? Slobs and ideological hacks are normative now in the publishing industry. DiLorenzo's creepy clique of uber-Catholic traditionalists take righteous tones with anyone who winces at Tommy D.'s shoddy workmanship, slandering their critics as boot-licking, hedonistic statists and all that jazz. One Dr. Woods chimed in to call a reviewer here at Amazon.com an "idiot" (in true Christian fashion!). Dr. Woods is a Hawvud man and a very righteous associate editor of the Latin Mass Magazine. I think back to J.R.R. Tolkien -- a real traditionalist Catholic and remarkable scholar of things Western -- and try imagining him calling unknown critics in the peanut gallery "idiots" and I just give up. Tommy D. is at least gainfully employed at a privately funded university; some of Tommy D.'s fellow bloggers aren't. They work for duh gubbamint as professors at podunky state schools (n.b., state school means tax payers basically subsidize the salaries and benefits of the professors there -- very libertarian!). The Tomster's gang actually has the temerity to slight a man like Ferrier who isn't on the public dole while they themselves suck from the taxpayer's teat. Neat-o. They preach against the state but enjoy the succor she provides I guess. It ain't like the state has a monopoly on colleges and universities of course. Thomas Aquinas College -- Dr. Ferrier's school -- and others such as Hillsdale do not take direct federal funds and are some of the few remaining colleges worth anything in the West (Lew Rockwell accidentally gave a plug to TAC last year -- Hans Hoppe spoke there in 11/03, probably not realizing that the faculty is staunchly Republican). The blog entry incident convinced me that Tommy D. just isn't reliable as a historian. He trashes and unfairly maligns scholars like Dr. Ferrier at privately-funded conservative Catholic schools and then doesn't retract his errors when they are pointed out. Tommy D.'s history of distortion, polemics and invidious half-truths leave one doubting his intellectual integrity. How can you trust anything he wrote in this book?
Rating:
Summary: Collectable
Review: I was raised to believe that President Lincoln was a good man, but I have since learned that he did some very bad things that would normally be considered "anti-American." This book details all those actions and so much more. Its both fantastic and well documented. It just goes to show you what politics can do to even a good man. In fact I read both the original edition and the new edition which includes a chapter where the author responds to critics who felt Lincoln was treated unfairly. Its worth getting the new edition just for that chapter. However, I would also keep the original edition and dustjacket (and get the author to sign it) because this one is a keeper.
Rating:
Summary: DISSECTING A TYRANT
Review: Since the day that Booth ended the career of the grasping, corrupt, and opportunistic lawyer for big business, an enormous edifice has been erected in order to convince the gullible modern that this villain, who single-handedly ended the American experiment in self-government, was instead a saint. With irrefutable facts culled from the historical record of primary sources, and from the perp's own words, DiLorenzo destroys that edifice. Don't buy the negative reviews that claim errors in veracity or context. These are most probably posted by those people from the government school system or worse. If you are skeptical of those of us who praise this tome just take a look at the cesspool around you, ask yourself how it came to be, and take a deep breath and dive into THE explanation. Thank you Mr. DiLorenzo for an essential volume of truth in American history. --DL "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." --Lord Acton "I saw in States' Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy . . . I deemed that you [i.e., Lee] were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo." --Lord Acton to General Lee
|
