The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War

There is no topic greater steeped in misleading half-truths and demagoguery than that of former president Abraham Lincoln's legacy. Perhaps the only thing that can be agreed to by all parties is that his presidency marked a radical shift in the ebb and flow of history, not only for America, but for most of Western Civilization. Where opinions diverge isn't really so much regarding the facts in question, as the arguments haven't changed much since the days of Lysander Spooner and Robert Louis Dabney, the two most noteworthy literary critics of Lincoln and his newly born Republican Party, each attacking the alleged saint/martyr from different ideological angles, but having largely the same general evidence for their critiques.In light of all this, it is important to note that "The Real Lincoln", which is the first in a small series of books Thomas DiLorenzo has been putting out on the economic history of America, doesn't seek to unearth any grand new truth regarding the barbarism of the Civil War or the greed and corruption behind the economics of the Whig-turned Republican Party of the 19th century. Instead, DiLorenzo relies on existing and strongly visible sources, most of them contemporary champions of Lincoln, in order to present the factual data upon which his opinions are founded. It is important to note that there are a few minor historical errors (which have been blown way out of proportion by critics of this book and made to all but represent part of some grand conspiracy on the part of DiLorenzo to bring back slavery), all of which are thankfully rectified and addressed in the latest edition of the book.The facts, contrary to popular opinion, are not on the side of the Lincoln admirers, though there has been no shortage of effort to make them so in spite of this. These disingenuous obfuscations are noted along with the sources they come from, and include such astounding ideas as Lincoln's abuse of the Northern Press and the jailing of political dissidents were simply the ingenious acts of a skilled politician or, better yet, a compelling use of dishonesty and deceit in the name of saving the nation. While R.L. Dabney lived through the atrocious abuses of the Union Army as the decimated entire cities south of the Mason-Dixon line, his own accounts were far more charitable than the factual bombardment that DiLorenzo rains down upon Lincoln and his cronies in the Union Army's upper echelon.But perhaps even more compelling and innovative than the historical accounts of Lincoln's abuses of Federal power is the economic angle by which the author presents the less savory motives behind not only Lincoln's war of aggression, but also that of the entire early Republican Party platform with all its infatuation for corporate cronyism and state-sanctioned manipulation of the American marketplace. This is delved into in greater detail in DiLorenzo's follow up book "Lincoln Unmasked", also an enlightening read regarding the post-Lincoln America to the present and how Lincoln's ideology has impacted current matters of foreign policy. It all boils down to a single truth, which is that the only way to excuse the atrocities committed by Lincoln's government is by closing one's eyes and ears to the actual nature of what was done, and this book does well to illuminate how commonplace this is in the endless series of books deifying Lincoln, let alone the atrocious pieces of cinema that have followed suit.This is an excellent introduction to a much more accurate view of Dishonest Abe, and presents it from the anti-slavery perspective of Lysander Spooner and other anti-war, anti-imperialist abolishionists, contrary to the claims of the frothing-at-the-mouth critics of this book who toss the word Neo-confederate around as if it were a proof-positive indictment of DiLorenzo's intent. It goes hand in hand with a lot of other books on the topic such as "Lincoln's Wrath", "A Defense Of Virginia And The South", and several other books that question the notion that America had to murder more than half a million of its own sons (not counting the non-military victims of the Union's scorched Earth policy in Georgia and elsewhere) in the name of ending an institution that the rest of the civilized world ended without shedding a drop of blood. This book weened me off of more than a decade of tall tales taught by the schools I attended in Pennsylvania regarding Lincoln's mythical sense of racial egalitarianism and his legendary crusade to save America from breaking off from D.C. as it did from England less than a century before.This book should be taught in every classroom in America, and hopefully in time it will bring back that old Jeffersonian tradition of questioning the so-called divinity of centralized power.

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.

I've never written an Amazon review of any book. I am 67, raised and educated in the northeast, have been a reader of US and Civil War history most of my life. Four years ago we moved to South Carolina and I began to look into the southern perspective on history.It's been a habit all my life when traveling and relocating to try to learn how folks in the new area think and see things and it has been very interesting and instructive to do so- from Wales to Ohio Amish Country to the South Carolina Upstate.This book has been an eye-opener for me. I've learned more about the history and economic history of our country from this book than all my other reading combined. The main concepts, all new to me, provide a framework for better understanding of today's political environment.For those who may be committed to 21st century "progressive " perspectives this book will be a hard pill to swallow, but if you're willing to reassess everything you've been taught about the Civil War and its impact on our history it will be thought-provoking and rewarding.Here you will find an antidote to the currently popular trend of oversimplification of historical events and persons- a perfect example of "a partial truth is an untruth."The style is for the most part objective and avoids polemics. It is somewhat academic and well-documented, but the writing easy to follow and interesting. I also recommend the YouTube videos of the author speaking on various related topics- they are well worth the time and will give you a sense of his style of communication.If you read one book about US history this year, make this it.

As Orwell made clear in 1984, history must be subverted in order to fit the current aims and goals of government. My Understanding of Lincoln was (as is taught to school children) that he went to war with his own country to solely free the slaves…….. Its only when you start to really look at a subject and do some research the myth starts to unravel. A wonderfully written book, with plenty of references to the numerous speeches and letters where Lincoln stated that he did not wish to grant freedom to the slaves or allow them access to the Northern states. A fascinating read….

In Italia, di solito, poco si conosce sulla figura storica di Abraham Lincoln, il presidente della Guerra civile. Ci si adagia per lo più di sui commenti degli storici statunitensi, che di solito esaltano la figura di Lincoln come quella di un padre della patria, di un martire e di un combattente della libertà. Per contrastare queste visioni agiografiche, utilissimo quindi questo agile volume, scritto in un buon inglese da uno storico del Maryland, che illustra con dovizia di riferimenti ciò che in realtà fu Lincoln, uomo molto ambizioso e che diede corpo ad una delle guerre più disastrose del genere umano (Un milione di vittime tra morti e feriti!). Lincoln diede un colpo di freno a tutte le voci critiche dellla Guerra civile, mediante la sistematica limitazione delle libertà fondamentali; anche la liberazione degli schiavi nel Sud fu più un espediente tattico, tardivamente introdotto, che un traguardo da tempo auspicato. In realtà, le cause prime della Guerra furono da ricercarsi nella politica protezionista degli stati del Nord, tale da strangolare il libero scambio degli stati del Sud.In definitiva un libro interessante, anche se indubbiamente di parte, per chiunque si interessi di storia americana.

Un ouvrage iconoclaste qui démonte le mythe d'un Lincoln idéaliste luttant contre l'esclavage. DiLorenzo montre comment la guerre de sécession américaine s'inscrit dans un projet des États nord-américains, visant à protéger leur industrie naissante par des droits de douane au détriment des États du sud, vivant des exportations agricoles et important beaucoup de produits bon marchés d'Europe. Lincoln utilise d'abord une émancipation partielle, concernant uniquement les États du sud qu'il ne contrôle pas, comme une arme de guerre. À plus long terme, son projet est de cantonner l'esclavage dans les États du sud, pour éviter la concurrence "déloyale" (à plus d'un titre selon moi) qu'il impose aux travailleurs blancs libres. Cette analyse, très bien documentée, avec beaucoup d'extraits de discours de Lincoln, montre à quelles extrémités certains groupes d'intérêt sont prêts à aller pour imposer des politiques économiques qui servent exclusivement leurs intérêts pécuniaires.

I love it when you come across a well written and meticulously researched book on biography. It is even better when it is one that smashes a long standing myth. I could not recommend this work more highly.

Nice one Tom keep up the good work. Suitable foil for the propaganda of Hollywood. Eye watering stuff.