Rating: 
Summary: An Economist Looks at History
Review: Good thing Mr. DiLorenzo has a job as an economist because he's certainly not a historian.Even a superficial scan of "The Real Lincoln" reveals true quotes from the 16th president, but lifted out of context to support Mr. DiLorenzo's 21st century conspiracy theories. In fact, Mr. DiLorenzo has no apparent knowledge of the mid-1800's, its social context, politics, or traditions, and not even the true economics. A "protective tariff" on cotton, for example, is a tax on cotton imported into the U.S., not on southern exports, and it protected the planters, not necessarily northern industrial interests, although they could benefit from it. Many planters supported it, along with tariffs on sugar and tobacco. Mr. DiLorenzo's freedom-loving fire-eaters south of the Mason-Dixon also promoted foreign adventures aimed at the conquest of Mexico, Cuba, and South American nations in order to establish slave states there to expand their own power and influence. Mr. DiLorenzo omits these facts, and any facts except that those that, on the surface only, would seem to support his thesis. What Mr. DiLorenzo does appear to have is an axe to grind, and he's willing to misrepresent history to make his case. Useless to try to refute his many factual errors and deliberate skewing of Lincoln's words and actions....Let alone his many fallacious straw-man arguments. Mr. DiLorenzo claims to take a libertarian approach to the U.S. Civil War, but a true libertarian should properly concern himself with the rights of individuals, not of the state -- not even of the Confederate States, which, after all, seceded to protect their cherished "peculiar institution." Every war is unnecessary, if you're willing to submit to the whims of petty despots, tyrants, patriarchs, and totalitarians. That dog doesn't hunt. A truly repugnant book, obviously inspired to try cash in on the knee-jerk anti-government crowd.
Rating: 
Summary: Unbalanced Presentation
Review: Although it contains and profusely documents what may be a selected part of the story of its subject, this book is at base a polemic and presents a decidedly selective view, perhaps to avenge the South and its controllers' abused and bloodied notions of political-oeconomy. To relate but one, however overarching, example: two pillars of the author's case are the rigteousness of states' rights under the 1787 Constitution, long-hallowed by the judgments of prior political giants, from Jefferson on, with notable exceptions such as Clay, and Lincoln's disruption of the inherent right to secede (the Hartford Convention of 1814-15 being mentioned as one partial forerunner, possibly to show that the shoe can be on the other foot). But, while President Jackson is boldly cited among the states'-righters, there is no mention made of his Lincolnesque stand in the 1830s, backing down South Carolina's U.S. Senator Robert Y. Hayne in the Nullification Crisis, an even-more-obvious forerunner of the 1860s Secession Crisis, by threatening convincingly to "hang the rebels higher than Haman". In fact, no mention at all is made of that particular earlier crisis; nor, for that matter, of President Jefferson's rock-hard stand against threatened secession of early western territory in the murkier Burr-Wilkinson crisis, likewise regarded by the particular sainted president in charge at the time as "treason", belying DiLorenzo's charge that it was somehow uniquely unjust for Lincoln to treat the much-greater and more-vivid crisis of Southern Secession as a much-larger case of treason. And DiLorenzo perhaps forgets duly-elected and re-elected and duly-sworn President Lincoln's announced and fully-sincere magnanimity toward the South, embracing a pardon by-and-large and full reinstatement of the myriad of insurrectionists. Compromise and duality were the bane of and fatal flaw in the republic from the start, not something to be kicked on down the road. The South didn't ask for compromise in 1861. The Southern states just precipitously left. Slavery was of the character of a treason against humankind and its creator - regardless how Lincoln may have regarded it - and manifestly was at least the inescapable background cause of the South's secession and the North's necessary reaction, lest the nation begin to throw off a wheel here, a fender there, and a rumble-seat there, until the whole previously-disjointed vehicle lay abandoned and steaming in the ditch. Lincoln "merely" succeeded in what he had to do under the circumstances, in all important respects. He didn't ask the South to bow down to him. And he didn't design the Reconstruction. That Lincoln ultimately intended us to operate as one nation is obvious. Whether we could (or can) successfully operate for the public's benefit in a disjointed or legally stratified manner is not.
Rating: 
Summary: Lincoln: Tyrant
Review: Thomas DiLorenzo has written a history of Lincoln and the Civil War that deals a heavy blow to the received notion of Lincoln's greatness. DiLorenzo clearly lays out the real reason for the war: Lincoln's dream of achieving the mercantilist state Clay, and his mentor Hamilton, envisioned. This state would have a strong central government where money would be taken away from the people (through protectionist tariffs), and given as subsidies to corporations (for "internal improvements"), and in addition would control the money supply (to print money as and when government needed it). No one can doubt that he achieved his goals - we still live in that state, only further corrupted by socialism, where other special interests in addition to corporations have joined the hand-out line. As even DiLorenzo's critics have to admit, the war was not fought to end slavery - the real reason was to prevent the sundering of the Union. The Emancipation Act, which freed no-one, since the only slaves affected were within Southern-held territory, was just a tactical move in the larger war effort, and belied Lincoln's real feelings about slavery - he in fact supported the practice. The single most important point DiLorenzo makes is that the South had the right to secede - a right supported by the Constitution, and documented extensively. Lincoln's war then becomes illegal - an act of agression on a peaceful neigbor, whose only crime was to wish to be free from the yoke of its neighbor. Of course we call slavery, in hindsight, a crime, but at the time of the outbreak of war, it was considered a crime by only a very small minority of the white population of both North and South, and thus cannot be used to justify the decision to go to war. Lincoln's real, and shocking nature is revealed through his dictatorial actions (in both North and South) during the war: Suspending habeas corpus; Imprisoning his critics without trial; Suspending free elections; Silencing newspapers; Using the army to intimidate opponents; Threatening the courts; Encouraging, or at the least condoning the despicable looting and burning of Southern civilian property by the Northern armies; etc. It is shocking that some court historians view this dictatorial aspect of Lincoln admirable and necessary at the time - were he the leader of any other country, he would have been called a tyrant.
Rating:
Summary: A very necessary re-examination of Lincoln
Review: Abraham Lincoln is ironically probably the only Republican president held in high regard by contemporary liberals. On the surface, this would appear to be because he "freed the slaves." But digging a bit deeper, as Thomas DiLorenzo has done, we find modern Democrats would probably commend Lincoln for the way he squashed states' rights, ignored the Constitution when it was at odds with his own ambitions, and cynically played the race card for political gain. In fact, both LBJ and Clinton might as well have been tutored at Lincoln's feet.
I applaud DiLorenzo for this seminal and timely work, timely because as DiLorenzo points out, Lincoln's success in expanding the federal government's powers as well as the bitter legacy of the Civil War continues to impact America to this day. That the federal always trumps the state is felt in many contemporary Supreme Court decisions that make a mockery of state legislatures. There is further irony here, in that Lincoln himself chose to ignore and indeed encouraged others to ignore, a Supreme Court decision during his administration that said slavery was a state matter.
Lincoln manipulated the moral "high ground" by resorting to the Emancipation Proclamation halfway through the war, when his generals had been losing battle after battle. He needed a new cause for political and moral support for the war, and slavery was the touchstone that resonated with some well-meaning but misled northerners. This was in spite of the fact that Lincoln was no racial egalitarian and his dream was to repatriate all blacks to Africa, whether they wanted to or not.
After the north won the war, it heaped abuse on the south in the Reconstruction, mocking southern values, plundering the south for the enrichment of northern industry and provoking indignation and resentment that has soured race relations to this day.
Lincoln had an opportunity in history to end slavery in a peaceful way, through compensated emancipation and respect for the Confederate Government's own measures to free slaves (much like a Middle East Roadmap), but he found it more to his liking to play dictator and achieve his Union atop the corpses of dead Americans.
Rating:
Summary: the unreal confederacy
Review: DiLorenzo has presented a historical revision of Lincoln,the Civil war and the nature of the federal government that is neither new nor very defendable in terms of the historical record. First the author refuses to call it the Civil War but instead uses the moniker -the war between the States . This is very revealing on his bias. The author claims that tariffs and the Whig/ Republican philosophy of mercantilism was the real reason. To ignore slavery in the origin of this war is the equivalent in ignoring German anti-semitism in evaluating the origins of German Naziism.First all the Confederate states permitted slavery and if the confederate constitution was so just why didn't they abolish that institution. If Lincoln by Di Lorenzo's agrument was not viewed as an abolitionist (or an enemy of slavery)-why did his election generate a panic in the Confederate States? The answer must lie in Lincoln's threat to the South's Perculiar institution. Lincoln is blamed for suspendeing habeus corpus and acting like a dictator but extraordinary times like perserving the union requires extraordinary measures. If one doubts that consider the 1000 people currently in detention under the Patriot Act with no access to counsel. The author makes the specious agrument about mercantilism but that system requries colonies for markets of goods which were not present at the time of the Civil war. Also tariffs may have been a two way street in that it made Britsh clothing more expensive and may have indeed helped the south's economy. How anyone can bemoan allowing black people to vote (in Reconstruction) is beyond comprehension as the author basicaly does while comparing Lincoln's views to Hitler's views contained in Mein Kampf . The north may be condemned for Sherman but what about Andersonville Prison (Georgia) camp? That prison camp's horrors were only equalled by Dachau. I could go on but save your money this book is really a justification for state's rights and the denial of liberty to all our citizens under the guise of historical research.
Rating:
Summary: Well documented historical fact.
Review: An excellent book. Well documented using sources from the period. Lincoln has become a folk hero, but the fact is that he was politician, and, like any politician, he was out to further his own political agenda & line his pockets along with those of his buddies. Nothing more, nothing less. When people die, especially when they die in a tragic why, people tend to forget their faults and build them up to be "larger than life." Think about it - name a "noble" politician. This book strips away the sentimental candy coating and reveals the politician who is no less corrupt than any other.
Rating:
Summary: WeeeHawww!!
Review: Great book for the anachronistic yahoos that would like to blame
Lincoln for their current twenty-first century complaints with
the federal government. Yes, Lincoln fought the Civil War to keep
a centralized government. No, he really didnt fight the war for
emancipation, until it was profitable to do so. In these statements this book is correct. These facts are nothing new. Only the retro-rebels who would like to see Dixie rise again seem
to think that this book exposes something never discovered in history's annals. Ah, if only Lincoln could have left the peace loving Rebs alone to master their slaves, then he would have done
the right thing, and STATES RIGHTS would have survived. The SOUTH
could be ridin' high on the hog right now, with slaves and the likes of George Wallace and Lester Maddox leadin the way! WeeeHaww!
Rating:
Summary: I see no agenda only facts...
Review: After reading many of the negative reviews on this board, I was quite shocked to find the book really has no agenda. It presents the facts as they are/were and uses LINCOLN'S VERY OWN WORDS AND ACTIONS which are researchable to back up what is stated. It may not be politically correct and quite unpopular to shine light on the facts regarding the horrible downside of our large central government. But the truth is the truth. The goal was to prevent Southern secession and keep the huge tariffs/taxes flowing to Washington and the North. Political ideologies - that's just what the Civil War was about. It most certainly was not Civil or Moralistic as we've been taught in school. And Lincoln was a politician very skilled in rhetoric, who like the rest speak out of both sides of their mouths. They say whatever sounds good to further their political agenda. Example in 1862 Lincoln wrote in part: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..." In an 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas he said, "Free them and make them politically and socailly our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this...we cannot make them our equals." Bet you never heard those quotes in school, huh? No one likes to admit what they "know" is wrong, I know I don't. But remember our parents lied to us about Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny. As kids we were quite convinced they were real. When we found out it wasn't true we cried and argued with all our might - we wanted so much for those things to be true. But the facts eventually made us realize what was reality. I say, read the book with an open mind. Do the background research if you wish...and decide for yourself. Don't let the rants of others dissuade you from doing your own honest evaluation. And for what it's worth, the man who wrote the forward, Walter E. Williams, is an African-American. That in and of itself says a lot to me.
Rating:
Summary: Zero stars for concept and execution
Review: A book for Americans who believe that the U.S. should be a loose Confederation of states where slavery is the choice of the states. Full of half truths and outright lies. Read it and weep.
Rating:
Summary: Truly Lincoln
Review: Though I am merely fifteen, I have read this book. In my opinion, it is excellent. The research is very thorough and the arguments most convincing. However, the South may not rise again, but it was still correct. Do not turn against this book because you have been taught otherwise. Open your mind and read.
|
