Rating: 
Summary: Good book if your a southern racist
Review: After reading it, all I can say is I feel like I wasted my time listening to an intelligent KKK members argument. ......Read a book... a real book.. not a political commentary.>>Ruthlessly and systematically suppress free speech? War was being fought for the first time on US soil, and we had southerners conspiring INSIDE our own capital. Should we allow them to express the pro confederate views and cause rebellions in our own capital? ... The times called for it, and Lincoln did what any rational person would have done. initiate the draft? Ummmm, yes this would be to win the war. Should we just admit defeat and allow the confederacy to continue and slavery to extend across our country? Is that what the forefathers that you say Lincoln went against wanted? look up the Northwest ordinance. Order the atrocities against Southern civilians (among many other things)? He did not order them, it was Sherman's plan and Grant approved. Granted it was not pretty, but war is not pretty, and it led to victory. Again, I suppose you would rather the fighting to go on so the confederacy could negotiate a peace and keep slavery. In summary, it is always nice to hear different views, but this is not historical fact in anyway, this is political commentary and anyone that wants to read on Lincoln and learn for themselves needs to read FACTUAL books, not commentary that looks like something Jefferson Davis would have written.
Rating: 
Summary: Ignore the flamers and read it for yourself
Review: My best advise to any person with an interest in this book is simple: read it for yourself before passing judgment. This book has been the target of vicious attacks, flames, and smear campaigns dating back to before it was even released and often coming from people who have never even read what it has to say. The vitriol directed at Dr. DiLorenzo over this book has generally been beyond the bounds of any civilized debator, critic, or analyst. They are not mere criticisms or factual rebuttals, but personal attacks on DiLorenzo's credentials, often themselves by people with far fewer qualifications than the man they attack. In his smear on Dr. DiLorenzo, The Claremont Institute's Tom Krannawitter snipped that Lincoln critics had sent "a giddy, careless, half-educated boy to do a man's job." Dr. Richard Ferrier of the Declaration Foundation, who was making attacks on this book before he even read it and before it even hit the shelves, name-called DiLorenzo a "minor scholar" to diminish his credentials. For the record, Dr. DiLorenzo, who holds a PhD. in economics, has published several books and dozens of peer reviewed academic articles. By comparison Krannawitter holds only a masters degree and has published little beyond editorial rants on the Claremont website. Ferrier too fits the very same description he projected onto DiLorenzo - the only text to his name is a self-published "book" on Lincoln run off a photocopier, bound in spiral at the local office supply store, and sold on his personal website. The majority of these comments have come from a "think tank" in California called the Claremont Institute and from persons affiliated with that group. They do it because they have heavy political capital invested in a positive portrayal of Abe Lincoln. To Claremont, Lincoln is a model of political statesmanship -- a political idol if you may -- of their view for America. They hold him up in adoration, almost like a political religious figure, and, according to their critics, often bend history to support their view of Lincoln rather than citing the good in Lincoln to support their view of history. Naturally Claremont took offense when DiLorenzo came along with this book. He portrays Lincoln in a negative light and, if one is to accept his arguments, makes the Claremont approach look like a platonic noble lie rather than a model of statesmenship. So they've attacked DiLorenzo from day one -- nay, before day one -- on a crusade not necessarily to discredit him (a difficult task since his academic credentials already surpass the sum of theirs combined) but more so to discourage the reading of his book. To that end they have called him names, waged intellectually dishonest attacks on his book, and exploited everything from semantical interpretation disputes to trivial typographical errors to suggest that its arguments are unsound. This all makes for amusing sophistry, but in reality, they tend to avoid addressing DiLorenzo's main arguments entirely. For that reason the best advice I can offer about this book is to read it for yourself. Some will likely find it agreeable. Some may interpret it differently. Most honest people will, at minimum, learn something new about Abe Lincoln and see him presented in a non-traditional way. It is a given that any book with a new approach to a high profile and controversial historical figure will attract the praise of some and scorn of others. As a reader, you may fall into either of these categories. But one should not avoid this book on the vitriol of those who do not like the political consequences it creates for their own ideology.
Rating:
Summary: The Real Lincoln
Review: I am in a position here of reviewing a book I have not read. To blame Lincoln as the cause of the Civil War is idiotic. Many Southeners were pushing for separation long before anyone heard of Lincoln. It may be true that Lincoln was a politician, but you have to keep in mind the enormous pressure he was under. First of all, he worked 18 hour days. He had a massive army and tons of resources at his disposal, but had little organization, and as a result during the first year or two of the war, the North experienced many defeats--almost in every battle on the Eastern front. He had peace democrats pressuring him to end the war--have peace at any price. He had members within his own cabinate who thought they could do a better job as president than Lincoln, and wanted him replaced. And while it was certainly true that slavary was a big issue, Lincoln's first job was to preserve the Union--not free the slaves. Preserving the Union at all costs was his first goal. In doing so, he did break or bend the constitution, but didn't FDR do the same thing when he was elected President for four terms? You'd think that if anyone would recognise a racist, it would be the black slave. Then how do you explain how the blacks fell down and began to worship Lincoln when he visited Richmond shortly before the war's end? This does not sound like the actions of a people who recognise racism. Yes, its true that the North did a lot of atrocities. But its also true that Southern general Stonewall Jackson wanted to do to the North what the North would do to the South--namely, burn fields, etc. Contrary to what former President Clinton said--he apparently knows nothing about history--Sherman's march to the sea had a direct effect on ending the war. If the Northern army hadn't acted as one body in 1864 and 1865, and had not burned the fields, etc., the ar may have dragged on until 1866 or even 1867. And has been noted, the South also performed its share of atrocities. War, is after all, war. Its not something you wage to make the other side feel good. Peace at any price is not the purpose of a country. We tried negotiating with Hitler, and instead of stopping him in the 193os when we had the chance--the Germans, after all, were not allowed to build weapons as a result of WW1--we negotiated with him, and ending up fighting him for four years. There is a lesson here that can be learned about our relationships with certain terrorist countries today. Nobody wants war, but if you have to have one, do it right. Lincoln had the right stratagy for winning the war, but it took time to put in place. As a result, today, we have a UNITED states--not just a random collection of states, where some are in the north and some are in the south. I think the Civil War would have been fought even if LIncoln had not been elected, and therfore I think this book is not worth the paper its written on.
Rating: 
Summary: Another view, but misses the mark
Review: I got the book as a gift for Christmas as I was intrigued by a book which debates the Lincoln myth. However, it became pretty clear that the book was a very selective, one-sided anti-Lincoln, anti-Republican viewpoint. DiLorenzo blames Lincoln for every horrible act that has happened in the country since 1840 since all Republicans revere Lincoln and follow his playbook. Even the most off-the wall scenarios are used as gospel. DiLorenzo does not use many Lincoln quotes (unless he can take them out of context), no anectdotal information from his friends (only his enemies) as he feels Lincoln's actions are more difinitive. Lincoln was the consummate politician, making many decisions based on its political implications. However, we have had many presidents (Bill Clinton?) take that approach to a new level. DiLorenzo forgets that the Republican party was a new party, created from the old Whig party, which favored internal improvements. To chastise Lincoln because he was a Whig is ridiculous--after all the voting populace did elect him (as they did other Whig presidents). DiLorenzo rants and raves about Lincoln being a tyrant, a man feared in Washington, when the opposite is true. On the evening of his death, he asked 13 people to accompany Mary and him to the theatre before someone agreed. That would be unheard of today. And if he was such a ruthless person, wouldn't the first have gone simply out of fear of his life or political future? And why did the voting populace, with the documented record very visible from the newspapers of the day, reelect Lincoln if he was this tyrannical infidel as DiLorenzo paints him? One of the most interesting points that DiLorenzo makes is that slavery would have been eliminated without the war by letting the South break away--the then Democrat-held viewpoint. DiLorenzo even speculates that the Confederacy would have petitioned the United States for readmission after a few years--even though this stands history on its head. Very few "split" countries have joined again. One only looks at a map of Korea, Yugoslavia, Packistan, Cechoslavakia, etc. and the conclusion is that one government will not give up power willingly. The only way for the Confederacy to ask for readmittance is if economically, the North would be much stronger than the South. And it would be difficult to speculate once the South started creating their own industrial infrastructure. But the one point I would like to make to Mr. DiLorenzo is a cost of the war that HE wanted to incur--the years of additional bondage by four million slaves. The war did end that. Granted, their life was not immediately improved, but they did have the opportunity to move West, go North and find another niche in society. I also sincerely doubt if the South with their arrogant attitude toward the slaves and the black race would have suddenly seen them as "humans" and therefore, be more amiable to giving them civil rights quicker. The problem with civil rights is not Lincoln's but the "seperate but equal" doctrine which segregated the Southern society. Once that was broken, equal rights could start moving forward. Another point which was argued by DiLorenzo was that secession was legal and Lincoln called it traitorous. The Republican platform of 1860 made this assertion and, again, the electorate voted Lincoln into office, knowing this. It really doesn't matter what the founding fathers said, wrote, or debated. Since it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is subject to opinion and position by the political parties. I find it hard to disagree with the electorate if they agreed with the Republicans (much to DiLorenzo's dismay). In DiLorenzo's scenario, if secession was granted, today we would most likely have between 2-5 countries instead of one large nation. There would be several currencies, trading would be more difficult, and at least as much government as today, not less. I gave this book two stars only because it does help one understand the absolute vicious press Lincoln had to face while in office. Whether you agree with DiLorenzo or not, there is one fact nobody can dispute: that slavery was ended in 1865 after the war and the passage of the 13th amendment. Letting the Confederacy split and become its own nation would not have freed the slaves at that point in time. The bondage would have continued for many more years. Was the price worth it? It is my opinion that it was. In DiLorenzo's--it was not.
Rating:
Summary: I will pray to god to forgive Mr. Deloronzio
Review: I had read about Abraham Lincoln since my childhood.I consider him one of the greatest persons ever lived on Earth.Lincoln faced hard struggle in his life and he contributed a lot in Human progress.But as we know some people are fools in our world.There were many opposers of Abe in his life.But we know that all of them were wrong.Lioncoln is the greatest figure in American History.Millions of good people have been inspired from his character.
This book tells nothing new.It is the collection of old criticism of Abe.Mr. Deloronzio is wasting his and our time in telling a false tale.This book is a collection of Deloronzio's wrong thoughts.I can't understand why this book is published and sold.Don't in states there is a censor on false books?This man wants to defame a great martyr.What Deloronzio has contributed in world's progress?Even the idiots who support this book(in 5 star reviews) had done nothing worthwhile for humanity.
This review will not be published.But listen,if this book is not stopped than all of us will pay for mistakes of some fools.
Rating:
Summary: This book is a piece of crap
Review: Anyone taking just a little time to read a few of the Lincoln biographies or histories that are available will quickly see what a wonderful, genuinely humane man Lincoln was--- and why he is rated our finest president. This book is a rant with a political agenda --- save your money. Read Shelby Foote's Civil War 3 volumes instead.........
Rating:
Summary: *** READ THE ... THING ***
Review: Whether you Love Lincoln or hate him, you must read this book. Lincoln Lovers should read it to prepare for the Lincoln bashing they will experience over the coming years. Lincoln haters should read it to further hone their arguments. If you are new to the issue, you should read it as an entertaining and eye-opening introduction.
My profound thanks to DiLorenzo. It's about time someone wrote a straightforward, easy-to-read book that presents the other side of the argument. After all, we owe it to the 625,000 young men who died. Believe me, his case is clearly and forcefully presented. Lincoln Lovers take heed; you will need a thorough grasp of the issues in order to rebut DiLorenzo's arguments. Appeals to the sanctity of the Union or beauty of Lincoln's philosophical prose will simply not cut it in the face of DiLorenzo's blistering descriptions of Lincoln's political behavior. ...
I do have a criticism of DiLorenzo. He does not deal sufficiently with what I call the "Prose Gap" which is the stunning difference between Lincoln's gorgeous writing and his actions. Lincoln wrote some extremely stirring speeches which appear to place Man's innate dignity as a core value. Why then did he: Start an extremely bloody war against his fellow citizens, order a mass hanging of Native Americans, exempt the Northern States from the Emancipation Proclamation, ruthlessly and systematically suppress free speech, initiate the draft and income tax and order the atrocities against Southern civilians (among many other things)?
The prose gap is especially important because most Lincoln Lovers are stirred, at heart, by Lincoln's writing; it moves them to justify his actions. DiLorenzo leaves this area open to future philosophers and thoughtful historians, but misses the opportunity to counterbalance some of the emotional heat of his argument and sets himself up for criticisms of bias and partisanship.
Lovers of Lincoln Prose should be reminded of the old adage: Actions Speak Louder than Words. Please Apply Liberally to Lincoln. Please remember also that many great intellectuals promoting tyranny have been gifted writers and highly persuasive, and able to sway masses of intelligent, educated people to their philosphy. When looking at ideological leaders, i.e. those with an inspiring ideological message, the difference between the good and the bad is typically their willingness to act militarily to subjugate others who are not a threat. I'm sure you can think of several infamous examples. Where does Lincoln fit? I'm not sure, but it should be openly discussed.
I believe this book is important for healing purposes. Mainstream critics tend to want these views to be submerged and forgotten when in reality they need to be dredged from the depths and aired out for the benefit of all. If their views are correct, why then they have nothing to lose!
ENJOY
Rating:
Summary: DiLorenzo claimes that the Republicans were not abolitions.
Review: As one critic pointed out "DiLorenzo belabors the point early in the book that the party was never about abolition." Once again DiLorenzo is making it up. In the election of 1864, the Republican Party platform called for the unconditional surrender of the South, and for an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw slavery in the United States. In contrast, the Democratic Party's platform called for a negotiated peace and the protection of slavery. Before Lincoln became President, Democratic President James Buchanan proposed that Slavery be written into the Bill of Rights to bring the South back into the Union. During the war, a number of attempts at reconciliation were made, always with the Confederates telling the President that they would end the war if Slavery were made part of the Bill of Rights. In one of the most bitter elections, the Democrats, led by Gen. George B. McClellan, accused Lincoln of sacrificing the live of hundreds of white men in exchange for the freedom of blacks by fighting a war that could not be won.
Before the Civil War the Democratic Party was the party that defended and promoted Slavery. After the Civil War, it was the party that brought America the stain of Jim Crow. When you think Confederate, remember they were Democrats first, and had presided over Washington for nearly 40 years before 1860.
Rating:
Summary: Idiocy passing for "History"
Review: Very seldom does a book make me angry. Very seldom do I get "personal" with authors. But this piece of fiction is outrageous.I am a life-long student of Abraham Lincoln and a life-long believer in reading all sides of issues...I even buy books which go against my personal views. This book, however, is a fraud. The author is less than parsimonious with invoking the names of noted conservative economists in order to get the attention of prospective consumers, and then strings together a litany of non-sequitur quotes from other writers (including the anti-Lincoln, Democrat, novelist/poet Edgar Lee Masters)as though these disparate citations are PROOF that Lincoln was some phoney politician. The author attempts to link Lincoln to the Marxian theory of labor value claiming Lincoln did not study Adam Smith, David Ricardo and other early economic theorists. While the author is supposedly a teacher of economics, I am surprised that he did not mention that 1)Marx took his theory of labor value from Ricardo and 2) the idea was accepted in American economic thinking at the time Lincoln lived. The author casts a wide net of acusations and then lets them stand as "fact." The author attempts to make Lincoln the direct philosophical descendant of Alexander Hamilton who is demonized in this work. Does this mean that George Washington, who kept Hamilton as Treasury Secretary, was also in on some author fantasized conspiracy? This trashy book attempts to make the Whig Party some kind of rich man's locus of power...the social class economic warfare model that the left-wing Democrats claim today (forgetting that most left-wing Democratic politicians are multi-millionarires themselves). While I could spend hours (or perhaps waste hours) refuting the author's claims item by item, I shall merely summarize by saying that this is a useless, idiotic, pandering publication that is not worth the paper upon which it is printed. What a colossal waste of money, energy and plant life to produce this contradictory book; copious footnotes do not ensure veracity.
Rating:
Summary: Won't look for another Dilorenzo book
Review: About 2/3 of the way through the book I realized this was really the rantings of someone who really doesn't like the Republican party. Mr Dilorenzo holds Lincoln personally responsible for the actions of those who came after him. He certainly doesn't take time to show that Democrats of the same time period were also involved in corruption.
Mr Dilorenzo goes to great lengths to show his scorn for "revisionist" authors of Lincoln's legacy when, in fact, that is exactly what Mr Dilorenzo is. I find his conclusion that the South was maneuvered into starting the Civil War totally ludicrous. The southern leaders at Charleston knew exactly what they were doing and what the consequences of their actions were.
Was Abraham Lincoln perfect? Certainly not, but neither was he the scoundrel that Mr Dilorenzo portrays.
A question I would offer to the book's author: What would have become of the United States if Lincoln had ignored the attack on Fort Sumter?
One aspect that the author overplays is the idea that the South was underrepresented in Congress. The South was actually overrepresented due to the 3/5 provision. At least Southern economic interests were overrepresented due to the extra votes they had in the House of Representatives. Southern economic interests had extra votes for slaves, who had absolutely no voice in government. The South wanted to be minority ruling the majority.
The cause of the Civil War was not slavery, but the economics related to slavery were very important factors.
|
