Rating: 
Summary: The Unfinished Civil War?
Review: Southern people need to get it in their heads that the Civil War is over! It ended nearly 140 years ago! Yet we see people that write this kind of stuff that think it is still going on. It is not right to make one of the greatest Americans look like an evil person, but who really only wanted nothing but peace. His heart might have been in the wrong place, but he did NOT start the American Civil War. He raised 75,000 troops at the beginning, but none of that would have been needed if the Confederates had not fired on Fort Sumter in the first place! Don't read this book. Don't read a story of what someone wished had happened! Get a real piece of history and expand your brain. The south will NOT rise again! Get it into your head!
Rating:
Summary: Proceed with Caution
Review: The title of this book should have been: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln through my Biased Eyes and Agenda, by Thomas J. Dilorenzo By using misquotations, quotes taken out of context, and having an obvious biased opinion against Abraham Lincoln, this economics professor loses credibility. To put it simply, I could probably make Mother Teresa sound like a bad person if I used the same techniques as this revisionist. Really, what new information has DiLorenzo found that we did not already have access to for the last 100+ years? He plays the part of the Lost Causer. A Cause that started immediately following the war. I'll agree that Lincoln stretched his powers to the limit, but it was a time of crisis in our nation that had never been seen before or since. No, Abraham Lincoln was not the Second Coming, (and was he not allowed a few mistakes?), but his well-deserved good stature in American history should stay secure, despite efforts such as this to tarnish his good name. I don't understand why some people look upon the results of this nation continuing as One as being regrettable. A better book would be Daniel Farber's "Lincoln's Constitution."
Rating: 
Summary: A Review of ... (and the Book)
Review: My publicly provided education left me the following understanding of Lincoln: he was honest and humble; one who watched out for the good of man in all respects; in sum, he was our greatest president. Until having read this book, I had no hint that those representations were false. Dilorenzo appears to have thoroughly researched this work and has provided detailed footnotes which clearly identify the source of facts. Any conclusions which he draws are patently obvious. The one or two which are less than certain he appropriately acknowledges. The substance of Dilorenzo's book is not new, based upon recently discovered truths as some reviewers may imply. Rather, the substance consists of well known (just not to the general public) and ACCEPTED facts. Interestingly, other authors, with diametrically opposing views (Marxist, socialist, etc.) support the undeniable facts about Lincoln, but simply choose to praise him for unconstitutionally stripping the states of their sovereignty in favor of a central government. In sum the book provides the history of how statists, beginning with Henry Clay, plotted to turn the constitutional government of sovereign states (who had the acknowledged right to secede) into a central government which had the ability to use its power for the benefit of big business at the expense of the citizen and his rights. If you are a Marxist or socialist, then you would be better off finding one of the other authors, who presents the facts, but with a different political philosophy. If you aren't interested in truth or don't have an open mind, then don't buy the book. Buy the book!
Rating:
Summary: Revisionism is not always better
Review: Revising history has always been an important evolution of society by not taking things by legends or biased parties. Many times a contemporary or revised view can really shed light on the true nature of things; this is not one of those cases. Clearly Mr. Dilorenzo, although well researched and well intentioned in many areas was clearly trying to shock people by uncovering the legend of Lincoln. It is true that Lincoln was indeed a politican in every sense of the word but to say that Lincoln is the cause of the Civil War is completely irresponsible. One can simply look back throughout the annals of American History from the Consititution to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and finally to Sumter and it is clear Lincoln's 'secret seizure of federal power' is not the reason the conflict arose. To call the Civil War a play for power by Lincoln is pure fantasy and this book should be regarded as that; fantasy.
Rating:
Summary: 'The Real Lincoln' is NOT a well researched book
Review: Contrary to a number of reviews that have appeared on Amazon's website for this book, DiLorenzo's 'Real Lincoln' is NOT well researched; it is sloppy and looks hastily written, in spite of the fact it has been revised from its original release. In addition to the book's highly questionable interpretations of a number of abridged Lincoln quotes and a sweeping and blanket acceptance of several controversial legal and historical claims, there are numerous errors of fact and citation that mar this book and do irreparable damage to its thesis. I have written a longer review of this book elsewhere; just a small fraction of the myriad of errors is listed below. To cite a few, on p.68 in the first edition of his book DiLorenzo wrote: "In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion the nationalization of money and to demonize [Andrew] Jackson and the Democrats for their opposition to it." I challenge the Amazon reviewers that said DiLorenzo's book is "well researched" to go and read the Lincoln-Douglas debates for themselves - they will strain to find anything much on the nationalization of money and related topics. In a later edition of his book, DiLorenzo corrected this mistaken reference to the debates, but then compounded his error it by replacing it with the statement: "Lincoln frequently made it a point to champion the nationalization of money and to demonize Jackson..." Yet there are no such "frequent statements" in Lincoln's Speeches and Writings nor is any citation given to show that Lincoln "frequently" did this. Such a citation is obligatory, certainly in a "well researched" scholarly book. This book is characterized by numerous similar sweeping statements that are either unsupported or have very weak support.
A few more examples are worth noting. In chapter 3, DiLorenzo wrote that Lincoln, in a letter to his Treasury Secretary, stated that the Emancipation proclamation had no legal justification, except as a military [War Powers?] measure. But DiLorenzo did not cite from a letter, rather from a recollection of a conversation that painter Francis Carpenter had with Lincoln, and this recollection is inaccurately rendered in the book. The cited reference, Paul Angle's 'The American Reader' (p. 286 n14) is also wrong. In fact, this (incorrectly rendered) material actually comes from Angle's 1947 book 'The Lincoln Reader.' On p. 289 of the endnotes, DiLorenzo corrects the Angle book's title for us but then gets the publisher wrong, listing Da Capo Press rather than Rutgers (Da Capo was not in business in 1947). On p.14 DiLorenzo wrote "Lincoln mustered his best rhetorical talents to praise [Henry] Clay..." but the examples given came from a newspaper that Lincoln was quoting -- hardly Lincoln's rhetorical talents. Similarly, Lincoln's supposed comment about the "deportation" of blacks (frequently and incorrectly ascribed to Lincoln by sloppy writers) was actually a quote from Thomas Jefferson, which Lincoln states clearly in his famous Cooper Institute speech - and Lincoln is clearly NOT advocating this position. Rather than reading Lincoln's work for themselves, sloppy writers and Lincoln critics seem to simply read and cite each others' work and thus regularly make this and similar errors of interpretation. In addition, almost none of the references to a major primary source - Roy Basler's Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln - includes the volume number while several references to 'Collected Works' were actually references to Basler's 'Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings.'
Many more small errors emerge for those that are familiar with U.S. 19th century history. On page 293, DiLorenzo cites Federalist # 36, but the quote cited actually came from Federalist # 46. In chapter 7, DiLorenzo calls Lincoln a war criminal and describes certain rules on treatment of civilians and civilian property in war, supposedly adopted by governments at an international conference in 1863 and based on an 18th century book. At the end of the chapter he again refers to the 1863 conference and its rules, and criticizes Lincoln and the U.S. government for not following them during the Civil War. Like so much of the work in 'The Real Lincoln' the 1863 conference never occurred. There was a conference on the law of war held in Geneva in 1864, but it primarily about the treatment of wounded soldiers, not civilians. The U.S. did not attend. The first conference to adopt a treaty dealing with civilians and civilian property was held at The Hague in 1899, some 30 years after the Civil War. Further, DiLorenzo gives no evidence for his claim that
"American politicians and military officers relied on the [18th century] work of Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vattel..." (p. 174) about the rules of war. He mentions a book by Halleck written in 1861, but that book's publishing date indicates that it hardly could have been an authoritative source that trained officers of the Civil War. DiLorenzo states that it was so used but again offers no evidence for this. The errors in this book continue relentlessly: miscites, wrong publishers, wrong pages, misquotes, sweeping statements with zero evidence offered, etc. Although The Real Lincoln's book jacket says this book is meticulously documented, it is nothing of the kind. As well known Lincoln historian Phillip Paludan has stated, 'The Real Lincoln' "subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge." If you choose to read 'The Real Lincoln' do so with the primary sources such as Basler, Fehrenbacher, Donald, Angle, and others open on the desk next to you. But rather than putting in that much effort, try reading the seminal works on the American Civil War from James McPherson, Gary Gallagher, David Herbert Donald, Phil Paludan, Gabor Boritt, Steven Woodworth, Robert Toplin, Henry Jaffa and many others. Or read some of the good books by DiLorenzo on economics. Your time will be much better spent.
Professor David Ahlstrom
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Rating:
Summary: Lincoln's not who you think
Review: Lincoln was a true dictator. He abused his power as president and is brought to light in this book. From the very beginning Lincoln had his own agenda and wouldn't let anyone step in his way, even if it meant locking up influential people in Maryland, thus overstepping his bounds as a president. Lincoln is put in the same ballpark as Clinton in his lies. Lincoln said just after taking his oath "I declare that I have no intention, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the states where it exists." Lier, dictator and even his wife couldn't stand him most of the time. Great book. I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome work!
Review: Admittedly, I was never a fan of the Lincoln fable. This book just adds fuel to the fire. I won't even carry money with his picture on it anymore. My personal opinion is that it is a great read and anger will keep you interested- either for or against the arguments. I personally agree with everything the author has to say about the Greatest Dictator America has ever known (my words). I agree with some of the critics of this book that it does not balance Yankee attrocities with Confederate attrocities, it clearly does not. Even as a hardcore believer in the Southern Cause, we were not perfect, but there are other books for that. The outlining of the situation and actions in the North is used to create a framework in which to place Lincoln, not as a broad brush to paint all Yankees with. I also agree that some of Lincoln's views were not only popular but that they had existed for over a century. The point in this book is that Lincoln carries his support of those views to extreme. It exposes Lincoln for what he was, and how he drug the country into the bloodiest war we have experienced just to further that agenda. Any student of the US Constitution will see that what Lincoln did was to "save the union" at all costs, especially including subverting the vary freedoms and principles the Constitution was based upon. He over extended his power and ran roughshod over the liberties he is historically portrayed as defending. Most of the critics of this book will probably fall into the category of "the end justifies the means" as Lincoln himself does. I do not support that and neither does this book. I can say this, you will either LOVE it or HATE it. But you definitely should read it.
Rating:
Summary: A Portrait of America's First Dictator
Review: During the American Civil War, more than 620,000 people were killed, hundreds of thousands more were maimed, much of the national economy destroyed, and civil liberties of all kinds were suppressed in the North. Lincoln even went so far as ordering the deportation of dissidents like Representative Clement Vallandingham of Indiana who openly spoke out against Lincoln, the war as well as the income tax Lincoln enacted.
Lincoln himself was an ardent proponent of the mercantilist policies of Henry Clay who's ideas were inspired by Alexander Hamilton who envisioned the United States as a monarchial society whos government would grant special monopoly privileges to a select, elite group of people and businesses at the expense of the rest of the citizenry. Similar to how it was (and is today) in England. The very policies we rebelled against when the U.S. declared independence from Britain.
Dilorenzo maintains (quite convincingly) that all of the death and destruction that resulted from the War between the States could have been avoided. During the early to mid 1800s, more than 20 countries that were mainly colonies of the English, French, and Dutch as well as the former colonies of Spain abolished slavery with compensated emancipation. We could have done the same, but Lincoln was determined to see to it that the society he envisioned would become a reality. The Civil War was the fastest and best way he knew that would make it happen.
Thanks to Lincoln a precedent was set for arbitrary government power which plagued the 20th century. Today's federal government is considerably at odds with the one envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Thomas J. DiLorenzo gives an excellent and meticulously detailed account of how this came about in this very well written book.
Rating:
Summary: This book is not a balanced treatment of the subject
Review: The book is not a balanced treatment of Lincoln's place in American history. If you want to find out everything negative about Abraham Lincoln, this book is the place to look. However,
it is not a balanced treatment of the subject and you will find almost nothing that conflicts with the author's viewpoint, even though there is substantial contradictory information available. For instance it faults Lincoln for not arranging for gradual emancipation of slaves but does not give him credit for the tremendous effort that he made for compensated emancipation. This omission is astonishing, because some of Lincoln's most famous quotes come from his congressional message in support of compensated emancipation. Overall the book is just a rant. It is not a scholarly contribution to the works on Lincoln.
Rating: 
Summary: The "Real" Lincoln
Review: Whenever I hear Republicans tell black people, "We are the party of Lincoln", I have to laugh. Why? Because if they knew the "real" Lincoln, they would shut up. In my household, we were taught to look at history from all angles. So I knew Lincoln was NO angel. In fact, left up to him I would still be a slave in Georgia. Its true. People need to learn the truth and call things the way it was, is and always will be. Its unfair to be critical of leaders who thought like men of their era. But its also unfair to tell one side of the story and to lie about it. Most Americans consider Abraham Lincoln to be the great Emancipator. He even has a national holiday. But alot of what people know about Lincoln is a lie. In "The Real Lincoln", Thomas J. DiLorenzo reveals a side of Lincoln not told in many history books. With extensive research and meticulous documentation to back up his claims, DiLorenzo portrays Lincoln as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government to a highly centralized, activist state. The South resisted to the national government. Furious, he launches the Civil War,not for slavery but for his own personal purposes. Now, as a black person I don't care how bad the South suffered. In fact, they deserved it. But Lincoln does not deserve to be called the "great Emancipator". Its time to tell the truth.
|
