|
|
|
|
|
|
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
written by Thomas Dilorenzo
Studio : Three Rivers Press
by Three Rivers Press
Release Date : 2003-12-02
Publisher : Three Rivers Press
Released : 2003-12-02
Availability : Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Number of Items : 1
EAN : 9780761526469
Avg. Customer Rating: (based on 298 reviews)
List Price : $15.95
Our Price : $8.88
|
|
| |
|
Product Description |
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 Hardcover edition. |
| |
|
| |
|
Help spread the word in time for the Lincoln bicentennial |
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.
|
| |
|
Fine work on Important subject |
|
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. |
| |
|
a good perspective and useful |
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.
|
| |
|
This Book Changed My Life |
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. |
| |
|
A Good Historical Examination of An Out of Control Federal Government |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
