Rating: 
Summary: Wow, What a Great Book!
Review: Over the past years I had become quite intrigued with the Lincoln legacy. No President in our history has enjoyed the incredible, unquestionable reverence that Abraham Lincoln has been given. But then one day the thought finally hit me that, "Wait a minute--this man was a politician. And most of us know how we feel about politicians. There's no way that any politician could have truly been so unbelievable so as to completely impress all of the United States so wonderfully during the time period in which he was President."In this book Thomas DiLorenzo proves my suspicions to be true. Lincoln in fact was elected to the Presidency with only 40% of the popular vote. While the founding fathers of the United States had believed firmly in a small and limited Federal Government Lincoln, as a member of the Whig party, had lobbied strongly and unsuccessfully for decades for a large central government. When he finally became President as a member of the Republican party he was then able to realize his dream to create such a government. While Lincoln has always been known as the man who abolished slavery the book shows how slavery was really only a minor reason why the Civil War actually occurred. Of far greater concern to the South was the fact that they were getting hit with the majority of the taxes and tariffs imposed by the Federal Government while most of this money was being spent primarily on projects in the North. What was also shocking to find out was the reason that there was no slavery in many states in the North at that time was not because these states were opposed to it in principle, it was because the majority of the people in these states did not want black people anywhere near them. Lincoln himself was no friend to the slaves as, speaking like a true politician, he declared his "opposition to slavery in principle, toleration of it in practice, and a vigorous hostility towards the abolition movement." When asked about his ideas on emancipation Lincoln further added, "Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then make them equals." In his home state of Illinois Lincoln even argued vehemently and unsuccessfully for one of his clients in court to allow the man to have slaves there despite the fact that slavery had long been declared illegal in that state. And in addition to this the book also talks about Lincoln's true desire to eradicate all black people from the United States and send them to live in Africa, Haiti, and other colonies in Central America. Lincoln even met with leaders of the black community after the end of the Civil War to discuss how to make this happen. Most people do not know that Lincoln's original Emancipation Proclamation, drafted in September of 1862, allowed any Southern states that rejoined the Union to keep all their slaves. It was only four months later in January of 1863 after no Southern states accepted this offer that Lincoln drafted the Emancipation Proclamation that we've become more familiar with. However, this more recent Emancipation Proclamation only proclaimed the slaves in Southern states not already under Union control at the time to be free. All slaves at that time in areas of the South already under Union control were exempted from the Proclamation. So in effect the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves at all. And once the Emancipation Proclamation was released by Lincoln riots broke out in the North as many, many people had no interest in fighting a war for the purpose of freeing slaves. Up until that moment in time most people in the North believed that the Civil War had little or nothing to do with freeing the slaves whatsoever. What is also intriguing is to learn about Lincoln's disregard for the Constitution and due process during his Presidency. He faced great opposition in the North against beginning a Civil War against the South. It had always been understood up until that time that all states had a Constitutional right to secede if they felt that the Federal Government was doing a bad job. This right was considered by our founding fathers to be the ultimate check on whether or not the Federal Government was doing its job as it should be. Many Northern states had in fact previously been threatening secession for years because of their unhappiness with the Federal Government. But when Lincoln was faced with strong Northern opposition for the War he shut down 24 newspapers that were writing articles that disagreed with his desire to go to War. He also immediately imprisoned many politicians who spoke out against his desire to go to war too. And at one time he immediately imprisoned 10 politicians in Maryland right after they were elected to office and before they were sworn in because he knew they disagreed with his views and opinions on the War, too. This book is extremely well-documented with research and verbatim quotes from many different reliable sources both from the Civil War era and afterward. Whether or not you agree with DiLorenzo's perspective and conclusions this book is a great source of new material and information about Lincoln that you may never have previously heard about from any other sources.
Rating: 
Summary: A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing
Review: DiLorenzo certainly has a little knowledge of Lincoln--a very little knowledge. It is astonishing that people who should know better consider this diatribe to be "documented." What DiLorenzo does is to present well-known comments from Lincoln--e.g. comments favoring colonization; disclaiming a desire for social equality, etc.--as though they were new and startling. What he does NOT do, is to consider them in relation to the times, or to recognize the enormous growth that Lincoln demonstrated as the war proceeded. Nor does he concede Lincoln's true loathing for slavery and for injustice, qualities that the record amply documents. DiLorenzo's sense of history is nonexistent. There is no evidence to support his tired neo-Confederate assertion that slavery would have withered without a war--after all, eleven states went to war attacking their own country to preserve it. To put it simply, DiLorenzo combs the record for a few items that--taken out of context--he can portray as supporting his unfavorable view of Lincoln. He has neither the perception to recognize the true meaning, nor the understanding to analyze the implications, of the material that he "studies." Essentially, DiLorenzo cares little about Lincoln or the Civil War. He is an economist--or to be more precise he conducts courses dealing with economic subjects, and generally writes on those subjects--and is by no means a historian. His motivation results from the fact that he is an anti-government ideologue. He vaguely senses, correctly, that Lincoln in some way created the foundation for the modern United States of America. Since DiLorenzo rejects the basis for this modern nation state--that is, its need for an effective nationalgovernment to ensure political equality--he has turned to Lincoln to cast the blame. (The fact that books on Lincoln sell didn't deter him either.) He could as well have turned his ire on many of the Founders--not only Hamilton and Marshall, but Washington, Madison, Adams, and many others who recognized the need for a Union with a strong national government. What is hard to figure is not DiLorenzo. He presents a simple case. It is rather why anyone would think his nonsense worth publishing--or buying.
Rating:
Summary: Thomas J. Dilorenzo has an ax to grind
Review: Check out Thomas Dilorenzo exposed in reviews at [website] to see how Dilorenzo ignores Lincoln's life work to prove a specious claim that Lincoln cared nothing about slavery, or that Lincoln even started the Civil War. Lincoln was a Declarationist in the mold of Jefferson who believed in the God given rights of equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People who want to still fight the Civil War obviously want us to believe it wasn't about slavery because they can not defend that and must shift the debate.
Rating:
Summary: It's About Time
Review: This book is extremely powerful and enlightening. For those of us who grew up being taught only the PC version of Lincoln, this book is an eye opener. This book should be required reading for all freshman history courses. It tells the truth about Lincoln and tells it well.
Rating:
Summary: The truth about Lincoln
Review: You dont have to like this book nor even agree with it. But its the plain truth about Lincoln the civil war,states rights,and slavery.Even an amateur historian can look up these records for themselves and decide on whats the real truth.People like to sugar coat history for there own ends. But the hard truth is you cant do this when records are public and anyone can read them.
Rating: 
Summary: good
Review: In this book, Dilorenzo talks about why he thinks that Lincoln was NOT one of our best presidents, as most people think, but a manipulative, extreme acting president. Most of Dilorenzo's arguments that he raises have to do with the Civil War and slavery. He raises many points that are unknown to the general public. One of the more shocking ones being that Lincoln didn't believe in racial equality and black equal rights. In fact, he planned to send all of the blacks back to Africa. He also says slavery probably would have ended anyway, with the policy being abolished state to state. He also goes on to attack Lincoln's role in the Civil War, which he clams was unnecessary. He points to other European countries, which were able to end slavery peacefully in the early 1800's. Dilorenzo also states how Lincoln was for a centralized government and bashes his Emancipation Proclamation, and his reconstruction plan. The conclusion reached in this book is that Lincoln is not as great as a president as most people think, and doesn't deserve all the credit that he is given. After reading this book, I must say that Dilorenzo's argument is very convincing and I must now agree with him.
Rating:
Summary: The Cold, Hard Truth about Lincoln
Review: In all of my middle school and high school history classes, I was always taught that President Lincoln was a great and fair leader who sought to free the slaves through the Civil War. But after reading Professor DiLorenzo's analysis of Lincoln and his presidency, I have come to the conclusion that almost everything I was taught was false!! Professor DiLorenzo certainly unveils the true side of Lincoln amidst the myths so well-known in today's society. DiLorenzo depicts Lincoln as a man devoted to his own personal goals for a centralized America and accomplished those goals by "subverting the Constitution, trampling state's rights, and launching a devastating Civil War." The Civil War was certainly not a war fought to free the slaves, but a war fought to "sacrifice the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government."
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book because it gave me a new insight on Lincoln and his dark, haunting views of the way he thought government in America should be. Known as the Great Emancipator, he probably should have been known as the Devil in Disguise. I'm sure many people think that "Honest Abe" was noble and honest and above board, but DiLorenzo shatters this stereotype. DiLorenzo says that Lincoln didn't follow all the rules as he was supposed to. Lincoln did numerous things without consulting Congress such as declaring Martial Law, suspending the writ of habeas corpus, imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens without trial, and even deporting an Ohio Congressman for critizing the administration's income tax proposal at a Democratic rally!! It seems to me that Lincoln went to desperate measures to achieve all that he wanted to accomplish, which was a centralized government. In conclusion, DiLorenzo says that "Lincoln's war had let the genie of centralization out of the bottle, never to be returned." The centralization of American government is an open chapter in a closed book.
Rating:
Summary: History gone astray
Review: This is a book that sums up everything wrong with the field of historiography these days. The faults are obvious from the beginning. The author (can you really call someone like this a historian?) seemingly has merely searched for a topic that would be controversial with sole aim in writing about it to increase his own personal image. Apparently the author ismore concerned with his own image than presenting a fair interpretation of the Civil War era. If how and why the war began is interesting to you, you would be much better off reading Eric Foner's Free soil, Free Labor, Free Men. The true ideology of the Republican party as it were some 150 years ago is accurately portrayed. However, unlike Fonner, the author of the book Im reviewing seems to forget the reason why the Republican Party was created in the first place- the reason was to erradicate slavery. Dilorenzo in this book seems to overlook the fact that Lincoln was raised in a family that hated slavery, so why would Lincoln not try to erradicate it? That being said, how can the author say the war was unnecessary? The Confedrates began the war by seizing federal arsenals and then firing upon Fort Sumter. The only way war would have been avoided was for the North to permit the South to secede. How can one find fault with Lincoln trying to ho9ld the nation together? The author here must be a modern day secessionist with a favorable view towards slavery. The author is right in one regard, Lincoln did base his decisions on politics. But how can one blame him? He was afterall president. But if one were to read Fonner's history and other historians such as Stephen Sears, it becomes obvious that Lincoln's true intentions were in deed noble and just.
Rating:
Summary: A Real Eye-Opener
Review: A few things you will learn: Lincoln was a racist, who had no interest in freeing the slaves until it became a good move militarily; he was a strong supporter of sending all blacks back to Africa or other colonies. The reason new states coming into the union did not want to be slave states was because they did not want blacks living there. Most Northern states had strict segregation laws. Almost everyone living at the time of the Southern Secession thought that they had a perfect constitutional right to secede. They seceded because of protectionist tariffs that were plundering their treasuries and sending the money to the North. Lincoln goaded the South into firing on Ft. Sumter to start the war (and no one was killed or injured). Lincoln jailed hundreds of newspaper editors and publishers for criticizing his administration. He had a congressman kidnaped and deported for opposing his policies. Ministers were jailed for failing to say a prayer for Mr. Lincoln. Well, I don't want to give away the whole thing, but this is a must read for anyone who wants to know just where our republic went off-track.
Rating:
Summary: Lincoln's Vision: Dream or Reality?
Review: When speaking of Abraham Lincoln, many speak of his beliefs that became the basis for the democracy and the freedom experienced in the present United States. Dilorenzo takes a seemly unpopular viewpoint that portrays Lincoln not as the "father" of a free market and independent society, but rather an advocate for what is known as "internal improvements". I found that this new take on the political giant was well researched and represented to the point where my own views of the former president were called into question.
Dilorenzo breaks down the historical portrayl of Lincoln as first and foremost an abolitionist. According to speeches made during Lincoln's run for office and after his election, it was made clear that in no way was he in support of freeing the slaves. It was pointed out that he instead viewed slavery as a means for production, but at the same time a strike against human liberty. No matter what his views were he made it clear through politically driven speeches that he did not posses the right or the power to overturn any aspect of slavery. Instead of abolishing slavery he concluded like Henry Clay that colonization would be a better solution to an ongoing problem. Exporting the slaves to other countries, yet still enslaving them for production purposes, would eliminate the supposed factor that kept contaminating the Union. As Lincoln would have it, the absence of slaves could give the Union and its citizens a chance to become the super race and power of the century.
Another issue at hand was the reason for an "unecessary" war that could have been avoided for the most obvious reason of all, which was the abolishment of slavery. If the reason for the war had been to abolish slavery, then wouldn't he, as Dilorenzo points out, settle the issue peacefully like the European powers had done. He did not see emancipation as an answer to the problem that plagued the country, but rather a burden. The question remained on how to preserve the Union,which he answered with war. The real reason behind the war lies within the domain of "internal improvements". It was Lincoln's fancy way of promoting a centralized government and banking system through political jargon and sugar-coating. The unecessary war was fought to keep Lincoln's dream of preservation and protection alive.
Throughout the book Dilorenzo makes a point to keep reinterating the thoughts of Lincoln so that the comparison with popular belief will always be evaluated. His arguments are strong and give way to the analysis of one's own beliefs, which I really liked. Lincoln is not the abolitionist, but rather the protector of a vision. It is up to the reader to decide whether or not that vision came true.
| 
