Prof Dilorenzo does a great service with this important book, offering welcome relief from what Edmund Wilson called the "romantic and sentimental rubbish" of the Lincoln idolaters. The veil of myth is lifted and underneath we see the father of the centralized leviathan, hypocritically hiding behind emancipation as an excuse to destroy the republic of the Founders.

I highly recommend you purchase multiple copies and distribute them to friends and family in time for the Lincoln bicentennial in February 2009.

The wonder is that more of this type of scholarship didn't surface a century ago. History being written by the victors, it isn't really surprising that it didn't appear sooner than that, but for the myth to be so prevalent, so unchallengeable, for so long, is a distressing mystery. Recently I read Eric Larson's Devil in the White City, a great book, and noted that a common reaction to much of the historical detail in it is, "why didn't I know this." That is the reaction here, but an order of magnitude greater and in a more important subject area. The surprise in this book is how much help it is in understanding today's political landscape. DiLorenzo doesn't just go back to the founding fathers, he goes back to Mercantilism and Adam Smith, and ties it all together. Required reading.

I am not as enamored of Lincoln as most. He mismanaged an unnecessary way. His northeast industrial backers urged the war for their commercial purposes. The textile mills and their bankers were in the north and wanted cheap southern cotton, which would go up in price if sold to the French and English. Industrial manufacturing and banking, including gun factories, was in the north and the bankers would benefit from a booming war economy. The South was agricultural.
I find it interesting that these same northeastern bankers and merchants wanted to seceed from the union in 1812 if the United States went to war again with England, because it would have hurt their shipping and other commercial interests.
Lincoln at the beginning of the war did not intend to free the slaves because his backers were afraid they would come north seeking employment and lower average wages, putting many of the existing population out of work. The Emancipation Proclamation had little effect in the midst of a war and was of questionable validity, but was a needed political statement at a time when the war was going badly and an election year was approaching. A politician doing political things put on a pedestal.
Slavery in the South had been decreasing for more than a decade because it was not economical to own slaves after the invention of the cotton gin, in addition to changing values in the South just as in the North. The northern Abolitionists made a lot of noise but like many protest groups of the 20th century were small in number.
Could another President have done better? Fewer deaths in Americas most deadly war. Avoided a war and its aftermath of Reconstruction and post-reconstruction. The methods used by Shermans during his march to Atlanta would probably qualify him for a place in the Hague today. I am not sure where that leaves Grant and Lincoln.
I mention the above because history is always less clear than it seems and is often in the eyes of the beholder. Ask one of the following to described the last hundred years of their history. Irish-English: Palestinian-Israeli: Pole-German-Russian: Serb-Croat-Albanian. It takes time for a proper perspective to develop.

For my entire life I was a hard-core Republican. I loved Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. I read DiLorenzos terrific book How Capitalism Saved America but I still remained a neo-conservative. I hesitated to get this book, but boy am I glad I did. Since then I realized that I have been lied to my entire life. I started reading DiLorenzos and Thomas Woods archives at LewRockwell (dot) com and became a Libertarian. I have bought this book for all of my friends and relatives. I converted my Republican brother and friend who are Civil War re-enactors. As my friend said, "I have only read two chapters and am convinced!"

By the way, one historian reviewed the book and said that a quote is out of context in the book where Lincoln supposedly said blacks can't be equal, only Siamese twins can ever be equal. DiLorenzo has said that he went back and found that the quote is out of context because he got it from a secondary source, and the secondary source got it wrong, so he will remove the quote if there is a future edition of the book. That should tell you that DiLorenzo is honest, and that all of his other quotes are in context.

At the height of his influence, many deemed him to be one of the worst tyrants the world had ever seen. He incarcerated 15,000 of his fellow citizens because they disagreed with his war policy. He had his army shut down newspapers and destroy the presses for any papers that wrote against him. He declared martial law and arrested political opponents without a warrant or trial and kept them locked up for years. His Secretary of State bragged that he could have any citizen jailed "at the snap of a finger." He had one Congressman who disagreed with him deported to another country. Then oversaw a war that led to 620,000 deaths...all within his own country. When half of the country sought to escape, they were forced to remain in the Nation.....or be slaughtered in mass for seeking liberty. In essence they were forced to remain citizens at the point of a bayonet. He ordered cities to be burned. Farms to be destroyed. Civilians, including women and children, to be bombed and executed. He was one of the most hated men in history.....and one of the most beloved. His name? Abraham Lincoln.
If the above paragraph shocked you, then you might consider reading a book entitled The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, By Thomas Dilorenzo.
While Lincoln is perhaps not as evil as this book presents, one can't escape the reality that Lincoln took some very harsh and unnecessary measures during the Am Civil War. Ironically, the majority of Americans in both the North and South were in favor of a peaceful secession in 1860. The North wanted separated from the South just as bad as the South did from the North. Yet Lincoln would hear nothing of it. Dilorenzo makes a rather compelling case for the economic motivations behind the war, given the fact that the South was paying roughly 80% of the Nation's expenses through tariffs, while the North was reaping the majority of the benefits in terms of bridge and railroad construction.
Furthermore, in Lincoln's first inaugural address, he stated clearly that he had no interest in freeing the slaves in the South and had no constitutional right to do so. When he reversed course and issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, he confided to his cabinet that it was simply a "war measure" meant to spark a slave insurrection in the South. Though most people don't realize it, the Emancipation Proclamation only granted freedom to slaves in the South. Slaves in the North were not granted freedom because their Masters had been loyal to the Union. William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State bemoaned at the time that the act was worthless having "freed slaves that we no longer have jurisdiction over...while keeping in bondage those slaves that we do." Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and even parts of Louisiana were under Federal control by 1863, and were thus allowed to keep their slaves. That seems to be one of those quirks of history that has been forgotten. Or as Dilorenzo contends....glossed over by the victors.
Dilorenzo, who is an Economics Professor at Loyola College (Maryland), writes in a very readable style as he makes his case that slavery should have been abolished by compensated emancipation as done in Britain, Brazil, and many other countries during the 1800s. The forward to the book was written by Dr. Walter Williams, Economics Professor at George Mason University, and frequent fill in host for Rush Limbaugh (and incidentally, an African-American). Furthermore, he contends that the South should have been allowed to secede peacefully....as our colonial fathers did when faced with an overbearing British taxation system. Had this happened, Dilorenzo contends that the North would have been forced to change their overbearing tax structure, and eventually North and South would have reunited with a much more solid and efficient government. But what in fact did happen was the centralization of federal government power to the extent that the Constitution was repeatedly ignored leading to the Federal albatross that exists today.
The argument between a massive Federal government vs. individual state sovereignty goes back to our founders. Thomas Jefferson was famous for saying that the government that "governs best is the one that governs least." In other words, the Federal government's job is to protect the citizens and insure they're given the freedom to purse life, liberty, and happiness. Jefferson's primary opponent was Alexander Hamilton, who sought to have a strong Federal government that dictated things to the individual states and the citizens thereof. Jefferson's followers fought against this (rightfully so), given the fact that they had just escaped tyrannical government control from Britain during the American Revolution.
As the course of our Nation progressed, the Hamiltonians, led by Lincoln, eventually gained control and vastly expanded the Federal government during the Civil War. By 1865 and the end of the Civil War, states right's had virtually ceased to exist, and the Federal government, which was CREATED BY the states, had become the ruling King of American government. Ironically, the states had created a monster and now that monster would rule over them for the next 143 years (and counting).
The great irony in all of this is that the two predominant political parties have swapped sides in the area of government control. Today, it is the Democrat party that seeks higher taxes and more Federal control over the lives of its citizens. While the Republicans seek a smaller government with more individual liberty.
In conclusion, I would heartily recommend the reading of this book. Its insights into our Nation's history are illuminating to say the least. You may not agree with every position taken, but the book does promise to make you think long and hard about governmental and constitutional issues. And it gives a pretty clear road map for the bureaucratic mess that we find our federal government mired in today. History kind of has a way, sometimes, of making people seem better (or worse) than they really were. I suspect this is true of Lincoln as well. While he had some admirable qualities, he was certainly not above political posturing or deceit, as is documented in this work. So check out a copy of The Real Lincoln...and prepare to be challenged.

To all those who think that George Bush is a dictator, consider reading a book that details the beginning of the centralization of power in this country.

The great counter-balance to the Cult of Lincoln. Throw out all of your orgasmic adoration for old Abe, this work will replace them all.

Lincoln had been my "favorite president" throughout my life based on the history taught in high school and college, but no more.

This book opened my eyes to the other side of this American icon, the side responsible for the centralization of our once democratic government.

Very easy to read - see for yourself.

I found the book discussing many facts that I had already studied because I always felt that our teachers were mouthing what was fed to them by the Great Northern Machine that rolled over the agricultural South and therefore wrote the history books.

This book is as much about the Republican Party, their insincerity, bigotry and their military-industrial complex as it is about Lincoln. Good or bad, we should look at history in its full context and this book gives us a good start. You may also want to do as I do and Google those parts where you want more knowledge on the subject, good or bad. No such book is without its faults.

One fact that most blacks miss, is that while Lincoln emancipated them, for political reasons, the results of the war and the way "reconstruction" was carried out in the South for the next decade, caused hatred and kept the blacks as second class citizens for another one hundred years and even today, they are struggling. Lincoln and Obama's own state wanted laws, making free black's persona, non grata in Illinois. This did not happen to England, Spain, and France who did not fight a war and kill their own people to free the slaves.

The Democratic Party finally saw the error of their ways but the Republican Party would like to still keep this hate, status quo.

George Bush, like Lincoln, is careful to not keep written word of his misdeeds and of his administrations secretes. Also his lackeys are destroying and hiding their actions as well. He is also guilty of some of the same crimes as Lincoln and even more which are too numerous to name here. He says that History will show him to be a great leader. HA! He must think that history will be as kind to him as it was to Lincoln. Lincoln and the Republicans had the benefit that the winner of a war writes their history. This is not the case for Bush or the Republican Party. Maybe this book will throw a little light on what happens when Americans believe, without question, all the propaganda that is thrown at them.

Overall, this book is exciting and fast paced. I received my Ph.D in American History at Georgetown and I thought his account of Abe was spot on. This book repeats at time but Thomas Dilorenzo makes up for it in posterity and style. This book should be required at every school!

I read this book after seeing a few libertarian critiques of Lincoln, thinking they made sense, and hearing this was a good summary of the libertarian arguments against Lincoln. I found the book very compelling, and would ask critics of the book and Lincoln to stop focusing on the trees and look at the forest of Lincoln:

-Why did habeas corpus have to be suspended?
-If slavery was the reason for going to war, why was the Emancipation Proclamation not issued until the war was over a year old, and why did it explicitly keep slaves in border states enslaved?
-Why did Lincoln imprison thousands of Americans and shut down tens if not hundreds of newspapers?

Even if you think the author selectively picks and chooses quotes of various people to make his points, it's hard to read this book, think about what actually happened from 1861-1865, and not have a much different opinion of Lincoln than what most of the United States currently does.

Let me say, right off, that this is not a biography of Lincoln. It is not even a character study because most of Lincoln's character is never touched here. This is a study - I think it fair to call it an attack - of one aspect of Lincoln, his ideological purpose in fighting the Civil War. However, it is a determined, fact-filled attack, worth reading.

I have always believed, on the basis of my own studies, that the American Civil War was unnecessary, but this is a view that arouses hostile feelings in Americans as it runs against the public-school civics course beliefs around that conflict.

There is definitely an American Civic Religion with a set of tenets and sacred writings and a cast of mythically-endowed characters comparable to the chief figures of the Old and New Testaments. Many well-known American historians, some quite eminent, are conscious or unconscious proponents of the Civic Religion, not such a difficult thing as you might first imagine because history, just like good police detective work, involves interpretation, judgment, and instincts. The raw facts, when they are even known, are always susceptible of emphasis and interpretation.

So it was refreshing to find a serious writer who also believes that the war was unnecessary.

However, Dilorenzo's reason for saying the war was unnecessary is different to my own. The author believes that Lincoln consciously used the war to impose the so-called American System of the Whig Party and Henry Clay, destroying the powers of the individual states and centralizing government in the United States. I believe rather that this was one of the unavoidable effects, wars always and everywhere being far more revolutionary events than people generally recognize.

There can be no doubt that Dilorrenzo marshals a strong case, but I believe that he largely fails to prove his main thesis. Lincoln, although not the sentimental figure of American text books and the Lincoln Memorial, was not America's Joseph Stalin.

Most of his fact-marshalling is impressive, but when he goes off on a tangent to give a background on the basic political split between Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians, he actually gets it rather wrong. Jefferson was anything but the kind of figure he is in the eyes of libertarian devotees like Dilorenzo. He was hungry for power, hungry for empire, and ruthless to those who opposed him. He bent or broke laws many times and never was bothered about rights of others where they stood in the way of his vision. Jefferson was, in short, everything the author claims Lincoln was.

The tone of this book becomes almost oppressive as the author hammers away with citations and anecdotes tending to support his view - in other words, the author is guilty of overkill.

The sense of oppressiveness is increased by the fact the author writes from an ideological viewpoint, not many pages convincing the reader of the author's pronounced libertarian attitude. In general, I do not like histories or biographies written with an ideological perspective, but here the fault is compounded by the author's narrow focus.

I don't think anyone with a fairly open mind can study Lincoln and come away with a view like Dilorenzo's. Lincoln himself was a victim of believing in the American Civic Religion of his day. He genuinely believed in The Union as a semi-mystical concept. Lincoln was a genuine skeptic with regard to conventional religion and the existence of God, and the feelings that might have had an outlet there attached themselves to "The Union." He was tough and hard-headed in many respects, but he would have been, in this writer's judgment, temperamentally incapable of launching and continuing a vast war for the purpose of installing Whig policy.

For those interested, the reviewer believes the Civil War was unnecessary because most great wars are unnecessary and rarely solve anything. For example, World War I only created the foundation for World War II. The American Civil War, which was not fought over slavery, solved little about the ugly institution of slavery. The South went on for about a century afterward with a new set of arrangements for its black citizens hardly better than the previous institution.

The Civil War did establish the anti-democratic principle that no state can separate from the United States, hardly an admirable or advanced attitude. The Civil War is also the tipping point in America becoming a world power with fervent imperialistic views (demonstrated earlier in a more provincial theater of operation in many policies such as the Mexican War), again hardly an admirable outcome.

I believe too that the angry, long-unforgiving South actually dragged the United States backward in social progress over the next century. The United States might have become a better, more decent place without the South and its superstitious religion and traditions of personal honor, much resembling the blood-feud attitudes of backward places like Armenia. And slavery itself would have naturally died out even in the South in a few decades as it did in so many places like Brazil.

This author tries to rewrite history and probably watches Fox News religiously. Not a book written for anyone with a brain who wants to read the truth about Lincoln and his repeated documented statements and speeches against slavery. Lincoln's bravery and courageous spirit changed the face of the United States for the better. He made a choice against slavery and it was the right choice. He kept the Union together and paid the ultimate price by being murdered by an prejudice idiot.

Throw this book in the trash where it belongs.

It's amazing that most Lincoln "scholars" will ignore facts to perpetuate the myths they've learned to love. Thanks to Mr. DiLorenzo for revealing the true character of our 16th President, 1st Dictator.

Southern apologists have long tried to deny the true motivation behind the Confederacy, and the true motivation behind Lincoln's desire to keep the Union intact. DiLorenzo offers them some interesting fodder for their cannons, but unfortunately for them, no balls.

There's no denying DiLorenzo's unbelievable distortion of Lincoln's own words when he says, "Eliminating every last black person from American soil, Lincoln proclaimed, would be 'a glorious consummation.'"

Here, for the record, are Lincoln's exact words, in full context:

"If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means, succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, with bright prospects for the future; and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation."

Hardly the inflammatory remarks DiLorenzo so desperately creates out of thin air.

Sure, Lincoln's deification at the hands of a mediocre history education is lamentable, but this in no way makes Lincoln less than a great man. Learning about his flaws humanizes him and makes him accessible. This is not worship at the altar of Lincoln, it is merely respect for his manhood.

The truth that you won't hear from the twisted and somewhat rabid form of libertarianism that pervades these reviews is that the strong central government had been long established by the time Lincoln moved to Washington in 1861. For good or ill, the anti-federalists lost. But their enduring legacy was the nagging cancer of slavery that they left unaddressed for a later generation to sort out.

As I said at the beginning, Southern apologists are always looking for new ways to deny the true motivation behind the secession of the Southern states. First, they say it's states' rights (that pro-slavery forces repeatedly and violently fought against popular sovreignty when it didn't work out in their favor is an irony somehow lost in these discussions), then it's "those industrialized yankees" trying to take over the Southern agricultural economy. Next, it will probably be that they wanted to secede so they could get back to nature and live like the Native Americans.

But why not go to the source - the Declarations of Secession by the states themselves, blasphemous and hideous caricatures of the Decalaration of Independence that they are.

SOUTH CAROLINA: "The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made."

SC claims that it would not have joined the Union in the first place if residents couldn't be secure in their, ahem, "property". SC even identifies its allies in this struggle as "the other slaveholding states" in the opening paragraph. Funny way for identifying the guys you're fighting alongside of for "states' rights".

MISSISSIPPI: "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

Gosh, no beating around the bush for them. This is the OPENING PARAGRAPH. Where's the part about states' rights?

ALABAMA: "Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama... "

You get the idea. "Domestic institutions" by the way, means slavery. I'm sure DiLorenzo's minions will find a way to distort that, but it's true. Later on, Alabama refers to its brothers-in-arms as "the slaveholding States". Again, if states' rights are mentioned at all, they are merely used as a smokescreen, just as they are today by politicos of all stripes, to justify a less honorable end.

Getting the picture?

Look, there's nothing wrong with a strong desire to go back to a less centralized government. Heck, you'd probably get a lot of people in this country to agree with you. But let's educate them in a more responsible way. Let's not lay the blame on Lincoln for something that was finished by the time Andrew Jackson was hosting public parties on the White House lawn (and arguably by the time the ink was dry on the Treaty of Paris). It's time for the apologist South to get over itself, lose that stupid god-awful flag, and humbly join the civilized world.

After only a few pages, I thought to myself, "WoW, I've had some pretty bad history teachers in my life." I have never, EVER, heard of most of the things in this book. With 40 pages of sources (that are VERY well documented), you'll have no problem checking the facts in the book.

I think every American should read this book and DiLorenzo's other book called "Lincoln Unmasked". After reading this book, you can come to only one conclusion: Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist, a liar, a crook, a murderer (by proxy), a tyrant, and the single worst president we've ever had.

The one bad thing about the book that took me out of the story was his "historian smack talking". In other words, DiLorenzo was talking about historical facts, then all of the sudden he would start talking smack about other historians that got things wrong. I think that those things either should have been in their own chapter, or left out entirely. They didn't fit.

I cannot emphasize enough, every person in America should read this book. This book should be introduced at the elementary history level in schools all across the country.

I knew from previous books that Abraham Lincoln was not quite the man that history has remembered. I knew about the suspension of habeous corpus, and the less than enthusiastic support of the anti-slavery movement. What I did NOT know is the lengths at which Mr. Lincoln went to achieve his personal and professional ends. Much of what we might consider flawed about the current politics of this country can be traced back to Abraham Lincoln. Lobbyists, subsidies, the culture of centralized government, these are all the consequences of the Lincoln administration. As well as the REAL reasons the Civil War was fought. Not, contrare to popular belief, over slavery.

Read this book, you will not be disappointed.

I was really looking forward to this book. I read it about two years ago or so. And then shared it with my son who is now in his second year as a History/Education major. I did this because I wanted to get his 'second opinion'.We agreed--this book is devastatingly BAD. Chapter after chapter the author is in attack mode like the shower scene from psycho. I was hoping this would be a good read, with some critical insight into Lincoln and his decision making and leadership---since no one is perfect. But this book became tiresome to read with 'waterfall of nonsense' attacking Lincoln every step---I was shocked it was an academic that wrote it.

I see that the author wrote a second one to this--I browsed it at Borders--it looked like a rehash

The negative reviews of this book are laughable. Dr. DiLorenzo has committed the ultimate sin against the neocon/liberal establishment -- he's shed the light of truth on the Nationalist Myth of Lincoln as the "Great Liberator" and shown him to be the worst fascist tyrant in the history of American politics. Lincoln is rightfully known as the American Hitler -- or more accurately, it is Hitler who should be known as the German Lincoln. Hitler was a fan of Lincoln, after all, as was Lincoln's contemporary, Marx.

Dr. DiLorenzo deals with the facts, and the facts are not in dispute. The neocons and liberals argue on behalf of Lincoln from a religious perspective, not from one of logic, history, or political ideology. And of course, they brand anyone who doubts the official dogma on Lincoln to be a "racist." Thomas DiLorenzo is about as thoroughly anti-racist as they come, and he demonstrates that it was Lincoln who was a hardcore white supremacist.

DiLorenzo does not make apologies for slavery. He goes as far as to say that IF Lincoln had invaded the South to truly free the slaves, then perhaps that would have been justified. I would stop short of going there, even, but DiLorenzo doesn't. But the facts of the matter are that Lincoln had no desire to free the slaves when he invaded the South, and that the war was in no way about slavery. It was about the "American System" of Hamilton and Clay, which had been rejected by the people in favor of Jeffersonianism. Lincoln forced upon the nation what it would not accept through popular vote, and what it could not accept under a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution. In all honesty, Lincoln wreaked more havoc against the fate of the world than even Hitler did, as Hitler was stopped after committing horrendous tragedies, while Lincoln's legacy lives on. Lincoln destroyed the great compact among the states and the sacred document that gave that compact its life. Now we have a central bank, huge standing armies, high taxation, and an invasive central state. Hooray for Thomas DiLorenzo for having the courage to publish this book!

A "laughable screed"? Why? Because it truthfully dims the incandescence of the hagiography? To the old maxim that the victors write the subsequent history, I will add this: Beware ANY pedestal that is:
1) Erected in the District of Corruption 2) Supported by the biography that is written by ANY author whose name ends in -berg 3 Is/was erected on the ashes of Jeffersonian freedom. And, no, nice try, I am NOT anti-semite. Arabs are NOT Khazars! Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe

Well bibliographied and thoroughly contrary to the Lincoln worship that we all received in school.

I always had my doubts about the Ft. Sumter pretext and Lincoln's real view of "the black man", now I know for sure.

I read this book in 3 days, you will probably read it in less time. Buy it, read it, lend it, amazing, thoroughly amazing book.

Judging by the reviews, people either loved this book, or hated it. There isn't much in-between. From what I've seen, most of the negative reviews are of the "Ready! Fire! (and to blazes with the aiming stuff)". The book flies in the face of their preconceived notions. The only explanation they came come up with is "it is ill researched" or "this is taken out of context", or it is "all lies".

The book has an extensive bibliography. Use it. Out of context? Is it? Did you check it out, or are you just making the assumption that it just HAS to be out of context? I haven't checked out every single source, but of what I have checked, the contexts are correct.

Ill researched? I try to contain my insides laughing at that claim!

All lies? I have read volumes of material which disagree with DiLorenzo's conclusions who admit the material is essentially true, BUT... and then make some statement to try to justify it all.

This is like saying that Richard Speck was actually a pretty decent fellow. After all, he ONLY killed 8 people, and may have had a good reason for doing so. Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh were much worse! Baloney! A despot is a despot, no matter how you slice it.

My advice is that if you have a closed mind, don't read this book. It will only make you angry. So angry that you will want to respond, and when you do, it will only be with tears and drivel over what a bad person DiLorenzo is.

I never bought into the notion that Lincoln was the greatest president when I was in high school long ago, unless the standard of measure of presidential greatness is who got the most Americans killed in an unconstitutional and unnecessary war.
The Real Lincoln is revisionist history as it should be, exposing the buried truth instead of repeating the establishment myths. Well researched and a great read.

When you trot out a theory that's guaranteed to face a massive headwind of disbelief and anger, it's a good idea to get your evidence put together into a form that's nearly unassailable. Thomas DiLorenzo faced exactly that challenge when he took up the cause of convincing Americans (and the world to some extent) that their favorite American President, "Honest" Abe Lincoln, did more to damage the free country founded in 1776 than any other who filled that office before or since.

DiLorenzo wasn't up to the challenge. And I say that as someone who agrees with his conclusion. I believe that Abe Lincoln put the United States founded by Jefferson, Madison and the other founders firmly in the past and replaced it with something far inferior and less free. However, believing something doesn't make every argument supporting your belief a good one. DiLorenzo's isn't.

Two examples:

1. DiLorenzo states that Lincoln didn't care about slavery and quotes Lincoln's speeches with anti-black rhetoric as support for his argument. Fine, but Lincoln had to get elected in an incredibly bigoted society before he could take any action to help the slaves. More radical politicians never got the power to make a difference. A possibility? Sure, but not a convincing argument when you consider the political climate of 1860 instead of 2007.

2. DiLorenzo talks about how Lincoln didn't abide by the wartime rules of the Geneva Convention even though it was codified in 1863. To be sure, that sounds bad to modern ears to which the words "Geneva Convention" are a household phrase, but the Civil War started in 1861 and a set of new rules codified once viscous fighting was underway probably didn't carry much weight at the time.

To be sure, DiLorenzo scores many points for the anti-Lincoln argument as well, but the books flaws make it feel like a college paper that keeps over-reaching its evidence in order to have "enough" for the professor. A little less would have been far more in this case. DiLorenzo sees too much of what he wants to see, just like he accuses the Lincoln Lovers of doing on the other side of the argument. As a result, he weakens an argument that needed to be rock-solid in the face of inevitable legions of critics.

This book is very detailed and thorough, I don't think you will be let down. If you thought Abe Lincoln freed slaves and loved everyone and was honest as long as his face, you will be in for a big surprise. The author explains THE REAL LINCOLN as someone who was just as racist as almost all the northers. Lincoln never had any plans of freeing slaves but making sure the central government came together. This President issued martial law in many southern states just so he could get his way; this president jailed many editors of newspapers in the NORTH because they were against the civil war; this president lead a war that killed 600,000 men, women, and children.
Dilorenzo from the very beginning of the book explains there were close to a dozen countries that were ending slavery peacefully and even explains that it wouldn't have been worth having slavely since the indistural revolution was starting. Why did Lincoln cause a civil war over something that was ending peacefully everywhere else? Because he wanted to institute the centralized government. If you think all southerns were racists and the only ones, you will learn that many northerns wanted to send all blacks back to Africa.
I think you will be glad to add this book to your library. I know I was. I simply bought this book because I did not know very much about Lincoln but Dilorenzo sure cleared that up.
Enjoy everyone!

A real eye opener, should be required reading for every school age child begining in the 6th grade and studied in every high school history class.

Disturbing book. The states had a right to secede from the union. This was accepted at the time. The right of secession is in fact a key to controlling the powers of a central government.

Lincoln entered the war without congressional approval, calling it a "rebellion". He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus without approval from Congress. The Supreme Court said that this was not constitutional, but Lincoln ignored it. Lincoln then took control of the newspapers, imprisoning without trial on the order of 13,000 people, including many people who voiced opposition to him.

The Northern armies, as is well documented, plundered the southern countryside: destroying homes, killing innocent women and children, killing livestock and burning crops. All this to save the Union.

Lincoln was The Great Centralizer. With him began the American Empire. This was continued after the Civil War with Manifest Destiny and the destruction of the Indian Nations.

.....by our teachers, who were lied to by theirs. We were taught that the Civil War was about slavery, and that Abe Lincoln was a secular saint, a man who believed in equality for all, and who saved the greatness of America. These are all lies.

The Civil War has its origins in the founding of America, where two competing systems fought for ascendency. Was America to be Federalist, an organic whole [Washington, Adams, John Marshall]? Or were we to be Democratic, to form a voluntary Compact of free, and independent states[Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Spencer Roane]? To have one voice, and an iron fist, dealing with foreigners, but an infinity of free voices at home. This is part [only part] of the famous Jefferson/Marshall feud.

In the early 1800's, Henry Clay advanced his American System, which aimed at centralization via a National Bank, protective tariffs, and [government funded] internal improvements. John Marshall was his judicial voice, Spencer Roane the voice of opposition. But, Clay and Marshall were NOT evil men. They loved America, but had ideas differing from those of the founders about how to make it great. Alas, by 1860, The Great Chief Justice and The Great Compromiser were dead.....

...enter Abe, a brilliant apostle of Henry Clay. Lincoln realized that if centralization was to win out, a civil war would be needed to crush the South once and for all. The Civil War was not over slavery; it was a war to insure northern economic domination. Slavery could have been ended at any point by compensated emancipation. It would have ended anyway, made economically untenable by changing times. Yes, slavery was wrong, but it was also stupid, destructive of those who used it.

Lincoln was able to precipitate a civil war, then, for four long years, he trampled the Constitution he was sworn to uphold. Legislators, and journalists, were jailed. War crimes were committed in our own land. A man who, on public record as racist as any Klansman, called for emancipation to keep England and France out of the war.

Up to Appomattox, the right [NOT wisdom] of secession was assumed to be inherent in the Federal Compact known as the Constitution. Earlier overtures at secession [by Northern states] were opposed as unwise, not as illegal.

Abraham Lincoln was one of the most evil men who ever walked the earth. He was quite willing to kill 660,000 Americans in a war over economic theory. This absolutely superb book dares to tell the truth. I may disagree with the author on some points: I do NOT number US Grant with the war criminals; he was a great and decent man. Dr. DiLorenzo gives Abe blame for Hitler's 6,000,000 Jews; that's too strong even for me, but he sure makes a case[whatever his faults, Lincoln was not an anti Semite]. For all this, the murder of Lincoln was a profound tragedy; some of his Congressional followers were far worse, and most were incompetent.

You may disagree with everything I say. You may call me a fool. You may even consider Abe a secular deity. That's OK; we are still Americans. The land of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry still lives. But, you need to read this book; you not only have a right to know the truth, you have an obligation.

Dilorenzo calls into question the Lincoln legacy, citing a litany of constitutional abuses by Lincoln in his quest for war, his discriminate & mercantile economic policies that belittled and betrayed the ideas behind the American Revolution, and Abe's supremacist beliefs that fly in the face of his "Great Emancipator" label.

This book is for anyone who knew there was more to "Honest" Abe and the motives for the Civil War than what was taught in high school, and wants to discover the ideology and politics of Lincoln that drove him to initiate such a hostile approach to states rights and commandeer the federal government to the point of anointing himself king.

Lincoln worshipers beware - you will either be enlightened or offended, depending on whether or not you have an agenda.

As Dilorenzo exposes, Lincoln's agenda was not in the spirit of freedom and the emancipation of slaves, but rather that of a tyrant hell-bent on imposing his will in order to give birth to a heavy handed, tax happy, anti-capitalist centralized government - state sovereignty be damned.

well i think this quote, in chapter 3, from lincoln to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley explains our great emancipator the best,
" 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; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."
The book shows a side of Abe that we haven't been allowed to see by the mainstream history books. unfortunately, the side that wins the war gets to tell the story of their war "heroes", whether the story is true or false.
Most people who bash these kinds of books stick to the points of: oh the south had slaves, the war freed the slaves, etc. This book can't dispute these facts obviously, but it can show that the north was just as bad and that "honest" Abe was just a politician. He wasn't a great man out to free slaves, but a man out to keep a centralized government at all costs. Obviously the loss of many many American lives in an unjust war, shows just to what extent lincoln would go to save his power. Enough rambling, the point is the abolishment of slavery was just a positive to come from the war, not the reason or goal for Abe and his war.

The book is a chilling perspective on the efficacy and motivations behind the works and influence of Abraham Lincoln... DiLorenzo makes some suggestions that will upset many people who are not accustomed to having their particular political dogma challenged or watch their idols denigrated...

The choices Abraham Lincoln made set a standard and precedent for the America we have today...

I have known many professors in my day that were total crack pots that could write a book. Revisionist in nature and hateful at best, this book has been written by a person that is tightly associated with a group called The League of the South which is a Southern nationalist organization whose ultimate goal is "a free and independent Southern republic."[1] The group defines the Southern United States as the states that made up the former Confederacy, plus Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland.[2] While political independence ranks highly among the group's goals, it is also a social and religious movement, advocating a return to a more traditional, conservative Christian-oriented Southern culture. Don't believe a word of this book!!!!!!!

A devastating expose of a mythical figure. Lincoln deserves nothing but our scorn and contempt, curse his memory.

I had always felt that Lincoln was perhaps the most evil of presidents. He viciously pursued total war on a civilian population in his own country. England and Brazil, among others, ended slavery without bloodshed. Why is this psycho elevated to mystical status?

I was fascinated by the book. Being very interested in that period in our history, this book certainly broadened my knowledge of this person who was making very important decisions. I recommend this book for anyone who wants to know more about Lincoln.

I was fascinated by the book. Being very interested in that period in our history, this book certainly broadened my knowledge of this person who was making very important decisions. I recommend this book for anyone who wants to know more about Lincoln.

Prof. DiLorenzo has done history a service by researching and writing this book. Almost all Lincoln scholars are poltically or culturally rooted in the North, thereby having restrained truly critical reviews of this president. DiLorenzo's research is highly valuable and frames Lincoln in a much different light.

Prof. DiLorenzo has done history a service by researching and writing this book. Almost all Lincoln scholars are poltically or culturally rooted in the North, thereby having restrained truly critical reviews of this president. DiLorenzo's research is highly valuable and frames Lincoln in a much different light.

DiLorenzo explains how Lincoln's quest to centralize power to the federal government and institute the policies of mercantilism (protectionism, corporate welfare, internal improvements and a central banking system), would not tolerate a peaceful secession of the exploited Southern states.

Far from being a heroic figure in American history, Lincoln's true legacy is not that he "saved the union," but rather that he destroyed the very principle of limited government the people had adopted when each individual state ratified our Constitution.

DiLorenzo points out the War Between the States was, as the American Revolution, primarily about oppressive taxation -- not slavery (unless one argues that it was about the economic slavery imposed by the North against the South). Like it or not, the war was clearly about tariffs. As is often the case, following the money usually leads one to the truth.

Lincoln needed to defeat the concept of state rights in order for Lincoln to impose his own vision of a powerful central government. DiLorenzo's evidence for this, as well as all of his contentions, is extremely well-documented.

Had Lincoln been on trial in 1860, charged with advocating equality, there would not be enough evidence to convict. After all, he supported the Fugitive Slave Act, promised in his First Inaugural not to disturb Southern slavery, and advocated the Black Codes in Illinois, which deprived Blacks of any semblance of citizenship.

Lincoln's emancipation strategy, though producing a desired result, was largely motivated as a means of crushing the South's attempt to escape oppressive tariffs. Had freeing the slaves been his motive, he could have championed compensated emancipation, the means used throughout Europe to bloodlessly free slaves.

Rather than ignoring his critics, DiLorenzo confronts them with compelling explanations and piercing logic. The strength of this book is not with the author's assertions, but in its factual content. Rather than contorting events to argue that Lincoln experienced a monumental social epiphany at some point, this book presents Abe as extremely consistent throughout his political career.

This book will severely inconvenience those wishing to believe Abe Lincoln to be a saint, motivated by a burning desire to liberate the Black man. But for those wanting to understand why our government of today so poorly resembles the model of limited government through state sovereignty, as created by Madison and Jefferson, DiLorenzo's work is invaluable.

Not everyone that refuses to hold Lincoln up as a godlike figure is a neo-confederate. On the other hand, all this talk of Lincoln being a tyrant and the war being one of Northern aggression is nonsense.
I agree with many that the republic and constitution was greatly altered, and not for the better,by the time of the Civil War. The government had not resembled what the founders intended. The South has a proud history and tradition and many writers and historians have made this abundantly clear, especially the late M.E. Bradford. My major problem with Lincoln was his (like many modern day egalitarians and leftists) reading and invoking the Declaration of Independence and it's equality provision. He gave that document overriding importance over the Constitution and giving it a meaning the founders never intended. Read Willmore Kendall and George Carey's "Basic symbols of the American Political Tradition" and Bradford's "A Better Guide Than Reason" to learn more. Lincoln's rhetoric was also troubling in the messianic language and religiousness it envoked in the conflict over slavery. Having said this, I do not agree with the Confederate defenders on other issues. The war was about slavery, just read the documents and speeches of the secessionists themselves. Sure the tariff issue played a key role in American Antebellum politics but was not the major cause that Dilorenzo says it was. The Whig/Republican/Northern agenda supported protectionism, commerce, banking, and higher tarriffs; but the issues were more complex and intertwined amongst the different regions. The South was agrarian and had their own interests, the North more industrialized and had their own interests too. It doesn't make the North evil, just sectionally different. This notion by many Southern writers of Northern commercial interests being less virtuous than Southern agrarianism is a stretch. It borders on mythical and hysterical. The North wasn't trying to subjugate the South economically. They were looking out for their own interests and what they thought would be best for an emerging nation. Dilorenzo does make good points but the issues are more complex and need more depth and analysis. In fact the South probably weilded more political power from 1789-1861 relative to it's population and economic strength than the Northern and Western States. Also, the tariff as a means of raising revenue was one constitutional power the national government did have. Congress enacted it legally.
Lincoln's main purpose was preserving the union and he bent the Constitution at times although he did try to temper the actions of his gererals and state leaders at times. They centralized government in a way that was unknown before the Civil War and which the founders had not wished, but suprise, surprise- so did Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy. Lincoln was thrown into an exraordinary situation. The South seceeded before any major action taken by Lincoln, based on their perceptions of what was to come.
No doubt about it; the federal government has throughout our history usurped power unconstituionally, trampled federalism and States' Rights, but to imply that it was all Lincoln's fault in a stretch. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ did more to destroy our Republic.
The Constitution is silent on secession, for or against. Many Southerners did perceive the North as trying to unconstitutionally destroy their way of life in a revolutionary way. Also many felt the founders had seceeded from Great Britian and that they were just following in the same tradition. This was ingrained in them from their strong beliefs in the compact nature of the union and States'Rights. Many southerners had a good grasp of the Constitution and republicanism. But to many Northerners it seemed that these isssues were brought up by the South when it suited their own needs and that once the Constitution was ratified by all the states, it was binding.
I think both sides had legitimate issues and readings of the Constitution.
This book is a polemic, nothing wrong with that, only it's one that is not backed up well with rigorous research and facts. Too many misquotes and quotes taken out of context also doom this book. It's interesting to read the debate between Dilorenzo and Harry Jaffa and other refutations of this book- easily found on the web. Part of the problem is Dilorenzo's libertarian position. While strong on economics, he's weak as an historian and his libetarian quest for ultimate utopian liberty (which the founders never intended) clouds his perceptions. Yes there is room for criticizing Lincoln, but back it up with something more scholarly.

DiLorenzo's book challenged virtually everything I thought I knew about Lincoln, so I did the logical thing - I looked into what points his critics cited in panning his book. I was surprised by what I found. Most critics challenged his "right" to be a historian, slamming him for citing the wrong edition of a book (right page, wrong edition), or citing to the wrong page of a book. Other criticisms were conclusory and not fact-based. When the smoke had cleared, it seemed that the major criticisms were nits picked by those adored Lincoln. None confronted DiLorenzo's facts. (This is a far cry from, for example, the Michael A. Bellesiles book, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture", whose critics shredded the book on a factual basis.)

So I read the book.

And was blown away.

Here is the explanation for how America went from the land of the free to the land of the government-dominated. Here is a thorough explanation how the Federal Government went from a minimalist government with scant intrusion into the lives of its people, to the modern day Leviathan which consumes 1/3 of every dollar we earn and gives us endless regulation and grief. Here is the seed of the welfare state, the precursor to Roosevelt's "New Deal" and Johnson's "Great Society" - and the beginning of the end of the Constitution.

Lincoln locked up thousands of those who disagreed with him. He cared not at all about slavery as a moral issue. He created the sort of Federal spending on programs that were previously successful private ventures, and which, as government programs, have put us trillions of dollars in debt. He destroyed the sovereignty of the states and laid the groundwork for George Bush to imprison people without charges, without access to counsel, without the right to confront accusers and ultimately without right to trial.

Dilorenzo's book helped me to see Lincoln in a new light. Lincoln: Responsible for more American deaths than any other president (nearly as many were killed in Lincoln's conquest of the Southern states than in all other wars combined). Lincoln: A war criminal who sent armies to attack the civilians of the South (not just Sherman, but all his generals). Lincoln: Consolidating government power over the people though the use of gun and bayonet.

Lincoln: America's Joe Stalin.

Read this book.

A lot of research examines Abraham Lincoln and other origins of American National Socialism. Much of the work helps to explain the massive growth of government in these United States of America and the growing police state. More work needs to expose the influence of American National Socialism upon socialists worldwide, and upon the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

In his books "The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked," the author Thomas DiLorenzo deflates all the stereotypical Lincoln legends about slavery, the war, and more.

Harry Jaffa, the head of what Thomas DiLorenzo calls the "Lincoln cult," has more than once compared the Southern cause to that of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSGWP). DiLorenzo's book humiliates Jaffa with quotations from the most notorious book by the leader of the NSGWP, wherein support was written for the War of Northern Aggression and for Lincoln's destruction of state's rights and for Lincoln's opposition to political decentralization.

The German leader said that the NSGWP "would totally eliminate states' rights altogether: Since for us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power." Thus the "mischief of individual federated states...must cease and will some day cease.... National Socialism as a matter of principle must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries."

Eric Foner, the socialist professor of history who has spent much of his career at Columbia University, has even cited Lincoln on behalf of the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. DiLorenzo' book cites a February 1991 article in "The Nation" called "Lincoln's Lesson," in which Foner denounced the secession movements in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Georgia, and called upon Mikhail Gorbachev to suppress them with the same ruthlessness Lincoln showed the South. According to Foner, no "leader of a powerful nation" should tolerate "the dismemberment" of Soviet socialism. "The Civil War," Foner explained gushingly, "was a central step in the consolidation of national authority in the United States." And then: "The Union, Lincoln passionately believed, was a permanent government. Gorbachev would surely agree." Modern American socialists boastfully repudiate the Lincoln myth about slavery and they declare that Lincoln's so-called "Civil War" was the violent suppression of independence, exactly what Foner wanted to see under Soviet socialism.

In 1939 the National Socialist German Workers' Party and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics joined as allies to invade Poland in a pact to divide up Europe, and WWII spread. It led to the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): 62 million slaughtered under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 49 million under the Peoples' Republic of China; 21 million under the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

In the U.S., Lincoln's War inspired American National Socialism and America's flag fetishism. Lincoln inspired Francis Bellamy, the author of the Pledge of Allegiance (1892). Francis was cousin and cohort to Edward Bellamy, the notorious author of "Looking Backward," (1887) a book known as the Bible of National Socialism and cited favorably in socialist propaganda worldwide. It was an international bestseller and translated into every major language, including German, Russian and Chinese.

The Bellamy's wanted the government to take over everything, including schools, and they wanted schools to be used as re-education camps to create the "industrial army" out of children and impose "military socialism" in America. That is why the Bellamys wanted a flag over every school and they wanted children to robotically chant to it at the ring of a government bell daily for twelve years of their lives like a brainwashed cult of the omnipotent state.

The early Pledge began with a military salute and then the military salute was extended out toward the flag into the classic straight-arm salute. The historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets") proved that it was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and of the similar salute imposed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The NSGWP is often referred to by a four-letter shorthand term, and that is why most people do not know the actual name of the party: the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Although the swastika was an ancient symbol, it was also used sometimes by the NSGWP to represent entwined "S" letters for their "socialism," as discovered by Dr. Curry.

Foner's endorsement of Lincoln's modus operandi is echoed by all democrat-socialists and republican-socialists on the national, state, county and city levels. It explains the USA's massive socialism, enormous taxing and spending, and its growing police state.

I suppose every author in this genre comes to the table with an agenda. That being said, in this book, Mr. DiLorenzo seems to play fast and loose with the facts (or at least with his conclusions).

The flyleaf of this book promises "extensive research and meticulous documentation" but at least one other reviewer has already pointed out some problems with this author's historical research. That should raise a red flag to anyone reading this book.

Consider this: The author claims Lincoln was more interested in building an American "empire" by centralizing Federal power than ending slavery. This implies Lincoln was premeditated in what he would do as President. I challenge anyone who believes that to read Lincoln's actual words and, more importantly, examine his actions.

This we know: Abraham Lincoln was a complicated man and, as a thoughtful person, his views on slavery changed during his many years in public life. He came to believe that slavery would not die out on its own.

I do recommend purchasing and reading this book since it is so different from the mythical view we have of Lincoln today. However, when it comes to some of the "facts" and conclusions expounded in this book be very careful what you believe.

Dilorenzo offers an interesting look at the Lincoln Presidency, but he does not offer any new information. Most scholars or those who read about this time period already knew about Lincoln's statements regarding slavery. He did not hide them and there are several quotes from his speeches and noted sayings that attest to this fact. The author also states that Lincoln was a constitutional dicatator--of course he was. You cannot impose a quaratine (aka blockade) for the South, suspend heabus corpus, or even submit the Emancipation Proclamation without asserting dictorial powers. This author provides nothing new, but simply re-hashes the old stories we can buy anywhere else.

Lincoln's sincerity about freedom and equality is really the lynch-pin of DiLorenzo's thesis. Mr. DiLorezo's book seeks to deny Lincoln his rightful place in the struggle for freedom and equality thru misrepresentation, contextual ignorance, and selective misinterpretation. In short, this book is ahistorical. Lincoln's claim to being the Great Emancipator lies not just with his Emancipation Proclamation, but also with the 13th Amendment, which he insisted on & sheparded through Congress. Those who feel Lincoln was insincere about freedom and equality would do well to read LaWanda Cox's Lincoln and Black Freedom: A Study in Presidential Leadership, Richard Striner's Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle To End Slavery, and Harry Jaffa's Cri