Audiobook
$0.00
with membership trial

Hardcover
$50.00

Paperback
$17.57

Buy used:

$50.00

FREE delivery Thursday, May 16. Order within 23 hrs 32 mins

Select delivery location

Used: Good | Details

Sold by avoralath

Fulfilled by Amazon

Access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.

Other sellers on Amazon

New & Used (22) from $16.49 & FREE Shipping

Follow the author

Thomas J. DiLorenzo

+ Follow

More books from this author

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War Hardcover – March 1, 2002

by Thomas DiLorenzo (Author)

4.7 1,253 ratings

See all formats and editions

A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
Most Americans consider Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest president in history. His legend as the Great Emancipator has grown to mythic proportions as hundreds of books, a national holiday, and a monument in Washington, D.C., extol his heroism and martyrdom. But what if most everything you knew about Lincoln were false? What if, instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln were in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in american history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain's? In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend.
Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized—as the Founding Fathers intended—to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.
You will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taught in school—a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and perhaps, unnecessary war.

"A devastating critique of America's most famous president."
—Joseph Sobran, commentator and nationally syndicated columnist

"Today's federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Thomas J. DiLorenzo gives an account of How this come about in The Real Lincoln."
—Walter E. Williams, from the foreword

"A peacefully negotiated secession was the best way to handle all the problems facing Americans in 1860. A war of coercion was Lincoln's creation. It sometimes takes a century or more to bring an important historical event into perspective. This study does just that and leaves the reader asking, 'Why didn't we know this before?'"
—Donald Livingston, professor of philosophy, Emory University

"Professor DiLorenzo has penetrated to the very heart and core of American history with a laser beam of fact and analysis."
—Clyde Wilson, professor of history, University of South Carolina, and editor, The John C. Calhoun Papers

Editorial Reviews

Review

"A devastating critique of America's most famous president."
—Joseph Sobran, commentator and nationally syndicated columnist

"Today's federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Thomas J. DiLorenzo gives an account of how this came about in The Real Lincoln."
—Walter E. Williams, from the foreword

"A peacefully negotiated secession was the best way to handle all the problems facing America in 1860. A war of coercion was Lincoln's creation. It sometimes takes a century of more to bring an important historical event into perspective. This study does just that and leaves the reader asking, 'Why didn't we know this before?' "
—Donald Livingston, professor of philosophy, Emory University

"Professor DiLorenzo has penetrated to the very heart and core of American history with a laser beam of fact and analysis."
—Clyde Wilson, professor of history, University of South Carolina, and editor, The John C. Calhoun Papers

From the Inside Flap

A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
Most Americans consider Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest president in history. His legend as the Great Emancipator has grown to mythic proportions as hundreds of books, a national holiday, and a monument in Washington, D.C., extol his heroism and martyrdom. But what if most everything you knew about Lincoln were false? What if, instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln were in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in american history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain's? In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend.
Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized―as the Founding Fathers intended―to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.
You will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taught in school―a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and perhaps, unnecessary war.

"A devastating critique of America's most famous president."
―Joseph Sobran, commentator and nationally syndicated columnist

"Today's federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Thomas J. DiLorenzo gives an account of How this come about in The Real Lincoln."
―Walter E. Williams, from the foreword

"A peacefully negotiated secession was the best way to handle all the problems facing Americans in 1860. A war of coercion was Lincoln's creation. It sometimes takes a century or more to bring an important historical event into perspective. This study does just that and leaves the reader asking, 'Why didn't we know this before?'"
―Donald Livingston, professor of philosophy, Emory University

"Professor DiLorenzo has penetrated to the very heart and core of American history with a laser beam of fact and analysis."
―Clyde Wilson, professor of history, University of South Carolina, and editor, The John C. Calhoun Papers

From the Back Cover

"A devastating critique of America's most famous president."
—Joseph Sobran, commentator and nationally syndicated columnist

"Today's federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Thomas J. DiLorenzo gives an account of how this came about in The Real Lincoln."
—Walter E. Williams, from the foreword

"A peacefully negotiated secession was the best way to handle all the problems facing America in 1860. A war of coercion was Lincoln's creation. It sometimes takes a century of more to bring an important historical event into perspective. This study does just that and leaves the reader asking, 'Why didn't we know this before?' "
—Donald Livingston, professor of philosophy, Emory University

"Professor DiLorenzo has penetrated to the very heart and core of American history with a laser beam of fact and analysis."
—Clyde Wilson, professor of history, University of South Carolina, and editor, The John C. Calhoun Papers

About the Author

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is a professor of economics in the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola college in Maryland. Specializing in economic history and political economy, he is the author of 11 books and over 70 articles in academic journals, and he is also widely published in such popular outlets as the Wall Street Journal, Reader's Digest, USA Today, National Review, Barron's, and numerous other national publications. He lives in Clarksville, Maryland.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Anyone who embarks on a study of Abraham Lincoln . . . must first come to terms with the Lincoln myth. The effort to penetrate the crust of legend that surrounds Lincoln . . . is both a formidable and intimidating task. Lincoln, it seems, requires special considerations that are denied to other figures. . . .
—Robert W. Johannsen, Lincoln, the South, and Slavery

More words have probably been written about Abraham Lincoln than about any other American political figure. According to one source, more than 16,000 books have been written on virtually every aspect of Lincoln's private and public life. But much of what has been written about Lincoln is myth, as Pulitzer Prize-winning Lincoln biographer David Donald noted in his 1961 book, Lincoln Reconsidered. Donald attempted to set at least part of the record straight; but, if anything, the literature on Lincoln has become even more dubious in the succeeding decades. Anyone who delves into this literature with an open mind and an interest in the truth cannot help but be struck by the fantastic lengths to which an entire industry of "Lincoln scholars" has gone to perpetuate countless myths and questionable interpretations of events. Many of these myths will be examined in this book.

In the eyes of many Americans, Lincoln remains the most important American political figure in history because the War between the States so fundamentally transformed the nature of American government. Before the war, government in America was the highly decentralized, limited government established by the founding fathers. The war created the highly centralized state that Americans labor under today. The purpose of American government was transformed from the defense of individual liberty to the quest for empire. As historian Richard Bensel has observed, any study of the origins of the American state should begin no earlier than 1865.

This aspect of the War between the States has always been downplayed or even ignored because of the emphasis that has been given to the important issue of slavery. Lincoln will forever be known as the Great Emancipator. But to understand the real Lincoln one must realize that during his twenty-eight years in politics before becoming president, he was almost single-mindedly devoted to an economic agenda that Henry Clay labeled "the American System." From the very first day in 1832 when he announced that he was running for the state legislature in Illinois, Lincoln expressed his devotion to the cause of protectionist tariffs, taxpayer subsidies for railroads and other corporations ("internal improvements"), and the nationalization of the money supply to help pay for the subsidies.

Lincoln labored mightily in the political trenches of the Whig and Republican parties for nearly three decades on behalf of this economic agenda, but with only minor success. The Constitution stood in the way of the Whig economic agenda as one American president after another vetoed internal improvement and national bank bills. Beginning with Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, Southern statesmen were always in the forefront of the opposition to this economic agenda. According to Lincoln scholar Mark Neely, Jr., Lincoln seethed in frustration for many years over how the Constitution stood in the way of his political ambitions.

Lincoln thought of himself as the heir to the Hamiltonian political tradition, which sought a much more centralized governmental system, one that would plan economic development with corporate subsidies financed by protectionist tariffs and the printing of money by the central government. This agenda achieved little political success during the first seventy years of the nation's existence, but was fully implemented during the first two years of the Lincoln administration. It was Lincoln's real agenda.

Roy Basler, the editor of Lincoln's Collected Works, has written that Lincoln barely ever mentioned the issue of slavery before 1854, and, even then, he did not seem sincere.Chapter 2 explores the doubts that many others have also expressed about Lincoln's supposed commitment to racial equality. The average American--who has not spent much time reading Lincoln's speeches but who has learned about him through the filter of the "Lincoln scholars"--will be surprised or even shocked by some of his words and actions. He stated over and over again that he was opposed to political or social equality of the races; he was not an abolitionist but denigrated them and distanced himself from them; and his primary means of dealing with racial problems was to attempt to colonize all American blacks in Africa, Haiti, Central America--anywhere but in the United States.

Chapter 2 also shows the extent to which Lincoln's views on race were consistent with those of the overwhelming majority of white Northerners, who discriminated against free blacks so severely that several states, including Lincoln's home state of Illinois, amended their constitutions to prohibit the emigration of black people into those states. Such facts raise serious questions about the extent to which racial injustice in the South motivated Lincoln and the Republican Party to wage a long, bloody war.

Chapter 3 poses a key question that almost no one has addressed in much detail: Why didn't Lincoln do what much of the rest of the world did in the nineteenth century and end slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation? Between 1800 and 1860, dozens of countries, including the entire British Empire, ended slavery peacefully; only in the United States was a war involved. It is very likely that most Americans, if they had been given the opportunity, would have gladly supported compensated emancipation as a means of ending slavery, as opposed to the almost unimaginable costs of the war: 620,000 deaths, thousands more maimed for life, and the near total destruction of approximately 40 percent of the nation's economy. Standardizing for today's population of some 280 million (compared to 30 million in 1865), this would be roughly the equivalent of 5 million deaths—about a hundred times the number of Americans who died in Vietnam.

Chapter 4 outlines Lincoln's real agenda: Henry Clay's "American System." For his entire political life Lincoln was devoted to Clay and Clay's economic agenda. The debate over this economic agenda was arguably the most important political debate during the first seventy years of the nation's existence. It involved the nation's most prominent statesmen and pitted the states' rights Jeffersonians against the centralizing Hamiltonians (who became Whigs and, later, Republicans). The violence of war finally ended the debate in 1861.

Chapter 5 discusses the long history of the right of secession in America, beginning with the Declaration of Independence, which is properly viewed as a "Declaration of Secession" from England. The New England Federalists attempted for more than a decade to secede from the Union after Thomas Jefferson was elected president in 1800. Until 1861 most commentators, North and South, took it for granted that states had a right to secede. This doctrine was even taught to the cadets at West Point, including almost all of the top military commanders on both sides of the conflict during the War between the States.

Lincoln's insistence that no such right existed has no basis whatsoever in history or fact. He essentially invented a new theory--that the federal government created the states, which were therefore not sovereign--and waged the bloodiest war in world history up to that point to "prove" himself right.

Chapter 6 deals with the odd nature of the claim by so many Lincoln scholars that Lincoln "saved" the Constitution by suspending constitutional liberty in the North for the entire duration of his administration. He supposedly had to destroy constitutional liberty in order to save it. Quite a few Lincoln scholars have labeled Lincoln a "dictator" for launching a military invasion without the consent of Congress; suspending habeas corpus; imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens without trial for merely opposing his policies; censoring all telegraph communication and imprisoning dozens of opposition newspaper publishers; nationalizing the railroads; using Federal troops to interfere with elections; confiscating firearms; and deporting an opposition member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham, after he opposed Lincoln's income tax proposal during a Democratic Party rally in Ohio.

Even though many have labeled these acts as "dictatorial," they usually add that Lincoln was a "good" or "benevolent" dictator. In reality, these precedents did irreparable harm to constitutional liberty in America. Some writers, such as historian Garry Wills and Columbia University law professor George P. Fletcher, have voiced their approval of Lincoln's assault on constitutional liberty because they believe that the Constitution stands in the way of their cherished goal of "egalitarianism." They openly celebrate the fact that Lincoln led the way in subverting constitutional government in America.

In addition to abandoning the Constitution, the Lincoln administration established another ominous precedent by deciding to abandon international law and the accepted moral code of civilized societies and wage war on civilians. General William Tecumseh Sherman announced that to secessionists--all of them, women and children included-- "death is mercy." Chapter 7 details how Lincoln abandoned the generally accepted rules of war, which had just been codified by the Geneva Convention of 1863. Lincoln famously micromanaged the war effort, and the burning of entire Southern towns was an essential feature of his war strategy.

Lincoln's political legacy is explored in chapter 8 in the context of how, during Reconstruction (1865-1877), the Republican Party essentially plundered the South for twelve more years by instituting puppet governments that constantly...

Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Prima; First Edition (March 1, 2002)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 333 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0761536418
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0761536413
Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.1 pounds
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6 x 1 x 8.75 inches

Best Sellers Rank: #295,223 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #716 in U.S. Civil War History

Customer Reviews:
4.7 1,253 ratings

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.

Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Videos

Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video!

Upload your video

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.

Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is the author of The Real Lincoln and How Capitalism Saved America. A professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, he has written for the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Washington Post, Reader's Digest, Barron's, and many other publications. He lives in Baltimore, Maryland.

Customer reviews

4.7 out of 5

1,253 global ratings

How customer reviews and ratings work

Reviews with images

See all photos

Sort reviews by

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Clay Garner

‘ purpose of government transformed from defense of individual liberty to the quest for empire’

Reviewed in the United States on June 12, 2023

Verified Purchase

This from forward by Walter Williams . . .

“As DiLorenzo documents—contrary to conventional wisdom, books about Lincoln, and the lessons taught in schools and colleges—the War between the States was not fought to end slavery. Even if it were, a natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it? African slavery existed in many parts of the Western world, but it did not take warfare to end it. Dozens of countries, including the territorial possessions of the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, ended slavery peacefully during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.’’

Yep, I’ve wondered that myself. Wilberforce and the English abolitionists outlawed slavery in 1840’s.

What’s different here?

“Abraham Lincoln's direct statements indicated his support for slavery. He defended slave owners’ right to own their property, saying that “when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives” (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).’’

Wha . . . t? Lincoln supports slavery!

Man-o-man. What a shocking book!

Why civil war so important?

“The true costs of the War between the States were not the 620,000 battlefield-related deaths, out of a national population of 30 million (were we to control for population growth, that would be equivalent to roughly 5 million battlefield deaths today). The true costs were a change in the character of our government into one feared by the likes of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Calhoun—one where states lost most of their sovereignty to the central government. Thomas Jefferson saw as the most important safeguard of the liberties of the people ‘the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies.’”

Now this explains question I’ve had. Where and when and why did the focus on individual responsibility and personal choice disappear from founders? In fact, today almost none left.

This book supplies answer.

“Lincoln's intentions, as well as those of many Northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the senatorial debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to “impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government” that would “place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders.” Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.’’

So true.

“The War between the States settled by force whether states could secede. Once it was established that states cannot secede, the federal government, abetted by a Supreme Court unwilling to hold it to its constitutional restraints, was able to run amok over states’ rights, so much so that the protections of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean little or nothing today. Not only did the war lay the foundation for eventual nullification or weakening of basic constitutional protections against central government abuses, but it also laid to rest the great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that ‘Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’”

Contents

Foreword by Walter E. Williams
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Lincoln's Opposition to Racial Equality
Chapter 3 Why Not Peaceful Emancipation?
Chapter 4 Lincoln's Real Agenda
Chapter 5 The Myth of Secession as “Treason”
Chapter 6 Was Lincoln a Dictator?
Chapter 7 Waging War on Civilians
Chapter 8 Reconstructing America:
Lincoln's Political Legacy
Chapter 9 The Great Centralizer: Lincoln's Economic Legacy
Chapter 10 The Costs of Lincoln's War
Chapter 11

Afterword: Responses to the Critics of the First Edition

“In the eyes of many Americans, Lincoln remains the most important American political figure in history because the War between the States so fundamentally transformed the nature of American government. Before the war, government in America was the highly decentralized, limited government established by the founding fathers. The war created the highly centralized state that Americans labor under today. The purpose of American government was transformed from the defense of individual liberty to the quest for empire.’’

‘Quest for empire’. Think invasions of Philippines, Mexico, Cuba, etc..

Another revelation . . .

“To understand the real Lincoln one must realize that during his twenty-eight years in politics before becoming president, he was almost single-mindedly devoted to an economic agenda that Henry Clay labeled “the American System.” From the very first day in 1832 when he announced that he was running for the state legislature in Illinois, Lincoln expressed his devotion to the cause of protectionist tariffs, taxpayer subsidies for railroads and other corporations (“internal improvements”), and the nationalization of the money supply to help pay for the subsidies.’’

I didn’t realize the fight of the ‘centralizers’ and the ‘individualists’ began that quickly.

Readers may experience different reactions. Some angry (deceived), some angry (truth), some delighted (undeceived), some delighted (government control).

Well . . .

In pondering the prophecy at revelation 13 . . .

“And I saw a wild beast (world wide political system) ascending out of the sea, with ten horns ( all political power) and seven heads, and on its horns ten diadems (crowns).’’

This is for the last days. What’s different now? Ascending in twentieth century? Hoe]w did this happen?

This book gives a clue.

Fascinating!

Recommended.

Work deserves ten stars.

27 people found this helpful

Helpful

Alan Dale Daniel

New Information for Most

Reviewed in the United States on May 2, 2012

Verified Purchase

The information contained in The Real Lincoln was stunning. The book does have more than its share of opinion, but the pure facts about the number of people jailed without a hearing, who never got a trial, and never received any kind of due process of law because of the direct orders of Lincoln was astounding. The additional facts about the number of congressmen detained, the election tampering (if one can call being jailed election tampering), and other unconstitutional actions were also new and disturbing to me. Opinions about why Lincoln issued these orders can abound, but the facts alone condemn President Lincoln as a man and as the leader of a "free nation."

I have read a LOT of history. The American Civil War, US History, World History, biography, ancient history, the middle ages, and more have been deeply studied by me. I have read hundreds of history books, still, much of the information about the numbers of people persecuted by Lincoln was new. Like most, I suspect, I have read biographies of Lincoln by people who thought he was the greatest of presidents. Most recently I have read Killing Lincoln, by Bill O'Reilly (I gave that a poor review), and A Team Of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin (another poor review). The best single volume book I have read on the American Civil War was the Battle Cry of Freedom. None of these volumes said anything about the numbers of people Lincoln had put away for political reasons without due process of any kind. Even worse, he held those people in jail for extended periods of time to forward his political purposes. These are proven facts which cannot be reasonably denied.

What I found particularly appalling was the jailing of newspaper editors that dared to speak out against the war or the conduct of the war. Lincoln even closed newspapers who were writing unfavorable opinions about him and may have organized or at least allowed mobs to burn newspaper offices for unfavorable opinions concerning the war and his unconstitutional conduct. In my mind this is nothing short of Stalinist activity. For a president to have ordered or allowed even ONE of these actions should have caused any historian to deeply question the motivations and the character of the man behind the orders.

As to the author's opinions about Lincoln desiring to implement the "American System" he may be correct. Lincoln did push for the Illinois programs that nearly bankrupted the state, and he was clearly a centrist who wanted to increase the power of the Federal government; however, the details behind all of Lincoln's federal programs may yield other motivations that were more closely associated with winning the war.

I do agree, as I have said in my book The Super Summary of World History, Revised, that Lincoln fumbled the ball in the end zone when he took over the office of the Presidency and immediately led the nation to war. Even after his inaugural address, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina et al, were staying in the Union, and only the deep south states had voted to leave the United States. This was the time for statesmanship, and Lincoln displayed none whatsoever. The president had many options besides going to war. By doing something other than calling up the troops Virginia and the other southern states still with the Union may have remained, thereby forcing the states that had left to survive without their powerful neighbors. Virginia had openly warned Lincoln not to call up troops as it would change Virginia's stance and they would leave the Union and join the Confederacy. Lincoln did not listen. Too bad, because Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee added massive power to the Confederate states. Negotiation could have pulled one or more of the deep south states back into the Union, splitting the remaining southern states geographically, and putting additional pressure on them to reconsider their decisions. Lincoln's lack of leadership and statesmanship at this critical juncture nearly destroyed the nation, even in "victory".

Most Lincoln biographers and Civil War authors say that Lincoln grew during his time in office and became a great president as he did so. I have always wondered what that was based on. Did he change his mind about slavery? Did he become a great statesman? It seems from Lincoln's later words that his mind had not changed on the slavery issue even though he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The Proclamation was a war policy, issued to keep the north fighting in spite of huge losses and to keep Europe from helping the south. I think it was issued with those factors alone in mind. After the war ended Lincoln would calculate what to do about the slaves, but winning the war came first. It always came first.

Did Lincoln grow as a statesman? Certainly, issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was a brilliant move which served to stave off northern war wariness and to keep the UK, France, or other European nations out of the war, but does that one move make Lincoln a great statesman? He spent most of his time in foreign affairs threatening war against anyone who gave material aid to the south. Lincoln only considered crushing the south, and he ordered (or allowed with full knowledge of the circumstances) his armies to slaughter civilians, devastate property, and leave the southern population starving even after the war. Sherman did not, alone, decide to butcher his way through Georgia and South Carolina. Sherman justified his moves by saying it shortened the war and thus saved lives. That is debatable. His actions probably did nothing to shorten the war, but his actions did breed resentment throughout the south that has not been dispelled to this day. Lincoln must be saddled with a good deal of blame for the actions of his armies.

The goal of wars, if fought for any good reason or with good sense, is to better the position of the winner in the future. Causing a population to hate you, and who will teach their children to hate you, isn't the way to do this. Ask Scipio Africanus, the man who beat Carthage and Hannibal in the second Punic War. He knew how to make war and peace.

So what gives Lincoln his greatness? John W. Booth most likely. If not assassinated, I wonder if Lincoln would have been considered great in our age. The killing of Lincoln right at the end of the Herculean struggle washed his record clean of what came afterward. And what came after the war was not good. Most biographers say these outcomes went against what Lincoln would have desired; however, that we cannot know. We can know that Lincoln stumbled badly and started what was probably an unnecessary war, he ran the war by slaughtering civilians in the south, and he violated basic constitutional and human rights of those in the north who might question him or the war. He was a great speaker whose words live on, but does that, coupled with his unique stubbornness in fighting the war, justify greatness? History has yet to accurately judge.

AD2

59 people found this helpful

Helpful

Top reviews from other countries

Translate all reviews to English

Mr. Andrew Crabtree

Outstanding review that challenges widely held understanding of Lincoln.

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on May 12, 2014

Verified Purchase

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….

6 people found this helpful

Dino

UN PADRE DELLA PATRIA ?

Reviewed in Italy on May 19, 2013

Verified Purchase

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.

2 people found this helpful

Translate review to English

Jean-Paul Azam

Une violence protectionniste

Reviewed in France on May 4, 2012

Verified Purchase

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.

Translate review to English

Aussie Bruce

I love it when you come across a well written and ...

Reviewed in Australia on May 7, 2015

Verified Purchase

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.

Karl Skid Marks The First.

Nice one Tom keep up the good work.

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on August 1, 2016

Verified Purchase

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

2 people found this helpful

See more reviews

Follow the author

Image Unavailable

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War Hardcover – March 1, 2002

Similar items that may deliver to you quickly

Editorial Reviews

Review

From the Inside Flap

From the Back Cover

About the Author

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Product details

Videos

About the author

Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Customer reviews

Reviews with images

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Top reviews from other countries