Rating: 
Summary: New Heights in Conspiracy Theory
Review: Despite its hype, this book adds nothing to the historiography of Abraham Lincoln or the Civil War. Numerous other negative reviews detail the text's numerous technical inaccuracies, and there is no point covering that ground again. I find it difficult to call this work a history. It contains no new information of consequence, and reflects no meaningful original research. Its conclusions are based on assumptions that are in many cases fallacious, and it advances its "interpretation" by setting up absurd "straw man" cases and then "proving" its point by knocking them down. In consequence, it offers no genuine insight into the period. This work is more in the nature of a neo-conservative rant about "big government" masquerading as a "study" of the civil war era, written to advance an agenda rather than historical understanding.
Rating: 
Summary: This Book is an Eye-Opener
Review: I am always suspicious of history books that seek to re-invent or shed "new light" on a well-known historical figure or event. History is too often re-written to support a writer's poilitical objectives, rather than to actually advance new historical knowledge. I began reading this book with skepticism.After completing it, I was impressed with the book's new perspective on Lincoln. As I read, I checked DiLorenzo's points against other reference materials. I certainly believe that he is justified in much of his analysis. It is fair that Lincoln undergoes the same corrosive modern scrutiny as all our other historical figures. This book is an eye-opener, and an important book for readers of American history to consider.
Rating:
Summary: Oh really?
Review: Ho hum -- another beetle-browed "historian" indulging in trendy revisionism. These guys are a dime-a-dozen these days. I've come to the conclusion that no history book written after 1965 or so is worth reading -- "new evidence" and "new investigative tools" be damned. What good are the tools and the evidence when they're used to promote theories that are perforce crazy enough to merit the attention of $$$-hungry publishers? Look, I'm not going to belabor all the points that Dilorenzo brings up to vilify Lincoln: the negative reviews here do a fine job of that. Lemme just reiterate the basics: 1) Lincoln did not invent the idea of a strong central government for the United States; that honor goes to some of the Founding Fathers like Adams, Washington, Hamilton, Jay, et al., whom Dilorenzo professes to worship so much. 2) Yah yah, Lincoln professed the "right to revolution" when he was a Congressman in the 1840's . . . but who hasn't repented in leisure the stupid comments of one's youth? 3) Dilorenzo takes Lincoln to task for believing that blacks were inferior to whites. This is stretching the case. He thought that African-Americans in the South (and NOT Africans) were inferior to whites AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, because of the general degradation they had suffered through centuries of slavery. In other words, they weren't going to write another "Emile" or compose a Chopin nocturne any time soon. He felt that they needed time. He also felt they might be happier amongst themselves rather than with a white culture that despised them. (Happily, African-Americans proved him wrong on this point and proceeded to make mighty contributions to American culture and civilization in general, in spite of white antagonism.) He NEVER thought they were inherently inferior, as the slave-holding JEFFERSON (whom Dilorenzo worships) most CERTAINLY did. Doubt it? Read Jefferson's correspondence . . . and make sure you read his opinions of INDIANS, whom he rated slightly above chimpanzees. 4) I live in San Diego, but I take greater pride in being an American than I do in being a Californian. I'd wager that 99.9% of Americans feel the same way, regardless of what "state" they happen to live in. I think that this is a good thing. It helped us to unite for the purpose of beating up guys like Hitler and Saddam. It helped us to build a massively large and powerful nation which enjoys a standard of prosperity and gracious living unparalled in human history. Does Dilorenzo mourn these developments? Bottom line: strong central government is just as old an idea as "states rights" ever was in the history of this nation. In fact, when it was formed, the two camps became political parties known as the Federalists and the Republican-Democrats. The Federalists became Whigs, and the Whigs became Republicans. Lincoln was a Republican. He subverted nothing. His idea of government was as old as General Washington. End of story. Next case, please.
Rating: 
Summary: An argument that at least deserves to be heard.
Review: There is little doubt that prior to the civil war the United States government functioned in a far different manner than it did afterward. The only Federal tax was a Tariff, the military was tiny, there was no National Banking System, and the States held a great deal of power. President after President had used their veto power to stop Congress from attempting something that the Constitution gave them no power to do. In short, the Federal Government was small and very limited in its scope. There is also little doubt that many Americans, in both the north and south felt that states did have the right to secede from the Union. Thomas Dilorenzo in this book argues that from day one of the civil war it was the goal of Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans to remake America, not end slavery. Dilorenzo points out that the Republicans were the heirs to the Whig tradition and their American System. He further claims that Lincoln's chief political goal was to implement this system, both in Illinois and the nation as a whole. Then comes the thrust of the author's whole argument. In the halls of Congress and in the White House the people who had been most responsible for halting this centralized American System were southerners. The list of southern leaders who had preached the virtues of small central government and states rights reads like a list of who's who in American history. Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Tyler, Calhoun, and of course Jefferson Davis. Dilorenzo's whole point is that Lincoln seized on the opportunity the secession crisis gave him to once and for all crush the south and build a strong central government to which the states would be subservient. In this book, Dilorenzo makes some very strong arguments for the case he is trying to make. On the other hand there are some assertions for which the evidence is very weak. There is also a great deal of time spent in simply trying to trash Lincoln. I have always known the Abraham Lincoln was not the saint that he is often portrayed as. No one could be. He was a raciest (as were most whites in 1860) and he did trample on the civil rights of the northern population in a way that we would never stand for today. However, the "real" Lincoln has to be somewhere between the Lincoln myth and the portrait painted by Dilorenzo. Finally, as you read this book, remember that the author is an economics professor and his training shows. Not to say that this is bad for sometimes it is a refreshing change. Dilorenzo is also a rabid conservative and his case against Lincoln and his strong central government is really a diatribe against our current federal government and a plea to roll back the years and do away with most government programs. Liberal or conservative, Lincoln fan or Confederate groupie pick up this book and read it. No matter how weak it is in places it will possibly give you some new insights into the civil war and it will at the least give you something to think about.
Rating: 
Summary: Lincoln: Hero or Monster?
Review: Thomas DiLorenzo lays out a prosecutor's case for the evils of President Abraham Lincoln. The author's perspective is that of an economist and so it's not a surprise that he sees Lincoln through the lens of the appallingly bad economic policies (high tariffs, corporate welfare, and a strong national bank) that "The Great Emancipator" championed his entire political career. Lincoln's defenders, like Harry V. Jaffa, look through a different lens and see a champion of natural rights, the Declaration of Independence and opposition to slavery. But no balance is to be found here, no nuanced examination of possible explanations, just a straightforward diatribe against America's first "dictator." DiLorenzo boldly concludes that Lincoln was "The Great Centralizer" and thus was responsible for many of the ills of the twentieth century. The author does not deny that the Civil War was about slavery. He makes it quite clear that the Southern states were deeply motivated to preserve this "peculiar institution" as it was called. Fortunately, little effort is made to defend the Confederacy in this book. Indeed, it would be quite hard to do so, since the governments of the Southern states were in the grip of slave owners bent on preserving slavery at all costs. What is asserted is that for Lincoln and the Republicans, the war was about preserving the Union so that the Republican agenda could be implemented and that Lincoln clearly articulated this repeatedly. Although the author does not talk much about the (Southern) Democrats, he does admit that they were just as corrupt as the Republicans. Many aspects of Lincoln are examined in regards to the Civil War. Starting off with Lincoln's racial beliefs, the possibility of peaceful emancipation, Lincoln's real (economic) agenda, Lincoln's actions during the war, and the war's legacy are all examined with an eye for the worst. Note that this book is not a history of the Civil War (or "War between the States" as the author likes to call it). It is an indictment of one man and his legacy. This book is certainly not a good introduction to this era. It would be a good idea to read a general history of the Civil War prior to diving into this. Also, one should be sure to read some opposing views after reading this to get a balanced view. Harry V. Jaffa's recent "A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War" is probably a good defense of Lincoln (although I haven't read it). Perhaps the most crucial aspect of the debates surrounding the Civil War is whether or not States have a Constitutional right to secede. Critics assert that DiLorenzo willfully misunderstands the difference between a Constitutional right to secede (non-existent, according to the Lincoln defenders) and a natural right to revolution and that since the Confederacy was engaged in the former and not that latter, it was illegitimate and therefore all of Lincoln's actions were justified. The actions that Lincoln took during the war are some of the most atrocious things that one will read and may seem hard to believe to the modern reader. The notion that the President could shut down newspapers at will, imprison people without trial and send in Federal troops to Maryland to ensure that only loyal Unionists (i.e., Republicans) were elected to the state's legislature boggles the modern mind. It is absurd to assert that this was all constitutional, as Lincoln's defenders do. The author points out that some of the top thinkers of this era, like abolitionist Lysander Spooner and philosopher Lord Acton, both despised slavery, but believed that the South should have been allowed to secede. Is the author able to prove his point? I hesitate to make a judgment since this is only the second book I have read on this era, the first being Neely's pro-Lincoln "The Fate of Liberty". While DiLorenzo makes a good case for what Lincoln's "real" agenda was, it's not clear that he succeeds in showing that the Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery was just such an abomination that even if its ending was not Lincoln's intention, it was such an overwhelmingly good result that any alternative policy that delayed its ending by even a day has to be viewed with healthy skepticism. The author seems to sense this and labors mightily to show that Lincoln's efforts lead to great evil as well, even going so far as to claim that Lincoln was ultimately responsible for the rise of the Nazis in Germany! I think one must read a good defense of Lincoln in order to determine if he's truly as monstrous as the author claims. But I believe DiLorenzo has done a fair job presenting his side. The author does seem to overstate his case at times, leave out vital information on certain topics and appear disingenuous on others. In other words, he seems to suffer from the same flaws that he attributes to Lincoln scholars who worship at the feet of old "Honest Abe".
Rating:
Summary: Don't destroy the Lincoln Memorial
Review: Don't destroy the Lincoln Memorial! Change it to a civil war memorial, remove the huge statue of Lincoln, replace it with a statue of DiLorenzo, and display the Lincoln statue in a visitors' center of the contemplative tone of the Holocaust museum, dedicated to all those who died because of Lincoln's Machiavellian arrogance! I'm not kidding, I support that idea after reading "The Real Lincoln", which highlighted the Fascism (in the unloaded definition meaning to defer to a collectivist spirit over individual rights, meaning "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. "...that defined the Lincoln Presidency. The book rightly criticizes Lincoln for suspending Habeas Corpus, fighting an unnecessary war, and institutionalized bigotry, among many other things. The claims presented by DiLorenzo are very clear, and very well supported. The writing is amazingly readable, and it is difficult to find an economist as cogent and interesting to such a wide range of audiences. Don't be fooled by what you hear about Jaffa's book... it is little more than a collection of tenuous claims joined together by an almost religious zeal for Lincoln in spite of the evidence.
Rating:
Summary: My high school/college history coach wouldn't approve!
Review: A refreshing, honest look!! Dilorenzo does an excellent job. The author uses facts and quotes to expose the true socialist/centralist agenda of Lincoln (and many other politicians). With his honest expose, the author systematically debunks the race-game used by so many superficial authors. For those who do not have a recorded family history, this masterpiece will help to put the war into historical perspective and let the reader discover the truth. The author does not elaborate fully on the vandalism, pillage and plunder of the fascist invasion, but does give great insight into the same with respect to the Constitution and design of the founding fathers. It gives a great economic backdrop for understanding the constriction of free markets, ever-growing socialism, fallacious economic reasoning, fiat currency problems, taxation without representation and other travesties that consistently exacerbate the nationalistic left wing socialism in our demopublican political system. Best of all, the author uses FACTS, instead of propaganda. He cites SOURCES, as opposed to using innuendo and conjecture. He covers this excellent read with so many actual QUOTES, that readers have the ammo to think for themselves, rather than be duped by a government history teacher with a government approved textbook. A wonderful expose of the white supremacy and racism that was prevalent in the north and a vindication of southerners, like my ancestry, whose only crime was their continued defense of the constitution, liberty, freedom and their families, homes, communities and sovereign states.
Rating:
Summary: Strong Attack, Weak Defense
Review: I must confess I came to this book with a profound bias against its central argument -- that Lincoln, far from being the "Great Emancipator" of the schoolbooks, was a duplicitous politician who intentionally sought Civil War as a means of promoting big government by unconstitutional means. By the time I put the book down I was largely persuaded of this view -- though not without serious reservations. DiLorenzo makes a compelling attack on Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, silencing of opposition, rigged elections, and aggressive warfare -- actions that sound all too reminiscent of our current leadership's expansionist, pro-business, anti-human rights agenda. However, the author goes too far in defending the southern Confederacy as an embodiment of the Jeffersonian ideal of decentralized government. I am a fourth-generation southerner, and I honor my ancestors who fought for the South -- but DiLorenzo is wrong. The Confederacy was, by the open admission of its own leaders, created in defense of slavery, plantation oligarchy, and white supremacy -- hardly a model for a democratic society. They deserve at least an equal share of the blame in instigating and prolonging the war. The southern states favored government intervention so long as it put them in a commanding position (Fugitive Slave Act, Three-fifths compromise, Kansas-Nebraska Act). The moment they began to lose this dominant position, they seceded. Further, while entire chapters are justly devoted to Northern atrocities such as Sherman's march, barely a line is given to southern outrages (Andersonville, Ft. Pillow, the Quantrill reign of terror in Missouri). This lack of balance amounts to neo-Confederate whitewash. If DiLorenzo has succeeded in breaking down Lincoln's stone edifice, he has done little in my opinion to erect anything substantial in its place.
Rating:
Summary: My, my what an arrogantly presumptuous title!
Review: Di Lorenzo alone reveals the "real" Lincoln to us, does he? This is a book with an agenda if there ever was one. Full of statements devoid of important context, either of many of the circumstances of the time or Lincoln's own writings to friends and in personal accounts, etc., as to why he felt compelled to do this or that -- all are completely ignored. Instead, Lincoln's "evil motives" appear at every turn as words and events are twisted and manipulated. Do I think Lincoln's every decision and move were 100% perfection? No, probably not. But I DO think he was a truly moral and great man thrown into the midst of a horrible mess who tried to solve it to the best of his ability. Any possible errors in judgment do not make someone into the monster Di Lorenzo portrays. If you were as disgusted as I was by this slanted attempt to vilify one of the great men of history, then read William Lee Miller's Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography. In it, Miller handily answers Di Lorenzo's nonsense. God bless you, Mr. Miller, for writing your wonderful book!
Rating: 
Summary: not much better
Review: The recent trend of herocide, or the slaying of mythical heros of history, seems to me rather trite. The historians that barge onto the scene, denouncing grade school heros as tyrants, scoundrels or infidels are no better than the lauditory historians that heap praise on national figures. The answer here is not to find some ultimate condemnation or deification of historical figures, but to understand them within the context of their time and understand their actions and motives. I blame much of the poor response to biographies on this. Without this effort to explain actions, the point of biographies is to me, entirely unclear. Unless we understand historical figures, how can we possibly condemn or laud them. It behooves us much to neglect those writings that seek a good/bad dichotomy, and instead focus our attention on writings that face the humanity of historical figures. Mr. Dilorenzo would do well to drop his agenda and try and explain Lincoln, not demonize him.
|
