Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe
- Amazon review tell us that:-
Far from being a "laughable screed," as claimed by the curiously
anonymous Publishers Weekly editor above, Lincoln Unmasked is a serious,
scholarly work. Only a thoroughly biased, ignorant critic would pen such
a characterization, and his or her opinion should simply be ignored.
If you look at what Lincoln did -- as opposed to what he said -- it is
hard to refute DiLorenzo's portrayal. Just take the single premise that
despite the south's attack on Fort Sumter, it was Lincoln who declared
war on his countrymen. Think about it for a moment. What kind of leader
sends troops to kill his fellow citizens? Even assuming that the south
wasn't maneuvered and provoked into the attack (it was), and that there
were casualties at Ft. Sumter (there were not), what would a reasonable
person -- let alone a leader -- do in response? Would a reasonable
person try to understand what had happened, to meet with the "attackers"
-- or would he immediately say "kill them"? Would a great President
negotiate with states who wanted to leave the Union, to keep them in the
fold -- or would he state "stay or die," and plunge the entire nation
into conflict? Would he try to keep chaos and calamity to a minimum --
or condemn 600,000 to death in a ghastly internecine war, which he
personally micro-managed?
Just considering that one premise -- and there are many, many more that
cast Lincoln in an extremely negative light -- it is difficult to
understand how anyone, let alone so-called academics, could consider
Lincoln a great President, or even a decent human being. The group of
"Lincoln scholars" who idolize him can, indeed, be labeled a cult,
because their adulation is based not on Lincoln's deeds, but on an "ends
justifies the means" rationale that "he saved the Union," regardless of
cost. It is similar to the reverence of dogs for their master -- it is
not based on logic and truth, but on a mindless devotion to a higher
power or concept. Those who praise "Father Abraham," while ignoring or
obfuscating the unpleasant truths about him, deserve nothing but
contempt, and DiLorenzo provides plenty.
My only complaints with the book are that it could be longer, and it
presents only one side. There is no attempt to analyze possible
thought-processes which might have led to Lincoln's specific actions. Of
course, this is not the author's purpose, which is to offer a
"prosecutor's brief" in response to the Lincoln cultists, and in this
DiLorenzo succeeds quite well.
Highly recommended.
Mr. DiLorenzo's well-written and well-researched expose of Abraham
Lincoln tells truths long ignored aka hidden by modern historians,
chiefly his undeserved reputation as "the Great Emancipator" who fought
a war out of strictly benevolent reasons. The harsh truth, as he so
eloquently points out, is that the Emancipation Proclamation freed NO
ONE AT ALL, and that although slavery was one cause of the war, it was
not "the" cause.
While no intelligent person alive today would not admit that the end of
the south's "peculiar institution" was the only good thing that came out
of the war, the ugly fact remains is that Lincoln was no less racist
than most men of the day, and that he used that cause as a propaganda
tool. The man who claimed to despise racism gave free reign to federal
troops in the west to wipe out the Indian tribes while supposedly
advocating equality to all in the northeast and south!
We do historical figures no honor by elevating them to martyrs, and
prevent future generations from benefitting from the mistakes of the
past. I highly recommend this book to serious students of politics, of
the antebellum period, Lincoln buffs.
~Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest
Abe~ is a nice follow-up to Thomas DiLorenzo's much heralded book, The
Real Lincoln, though it is certainly no substitute for the original. I
recommend that readers read both books in tandem, particularly if they
haven't read the first book.
This powerful little tome is an erudite challenge to the Lincoln legacy.
DiLorenzo points out that so much of the lore that has surrounded the
Lincoln legacy is almost completely bereft of historical fact. Likewise,
he casts light on Lincoln's real legacy of unconstitutional usurpation,
political patronage, corruption, and setting the stage for the colossal
rise in big government that reached fruition in FDR's New Deal. We
Americans live in the wake of Lincoln and FDR, and live with the
political consequences of the Lincoln legacy. Constitutionally-limited
government, states' rights and the Tenth Amendment only seem to exist on
a piece of parchment and in our collective memories, but has no bearing
whatsoever with the present reality.
Thomas DiLorenzo has taken criticism for being an economist by training
and not an historian, but seriously is that really what matters? When I
met him in person, I told him he could take it as a compliment that his
critics say he is not an historian given the ideological non-sense of
most historians these days. Given their cultic celebration of state
power, their extol for mindless state intervention in the economy, and
their much heralded sacred cows FDR and Lincoln, all things considered,
who would want to be regarded as an academic historian anyway?
When Thomas DiLorenzo debated that mindless egalitarian Harry Jaffa, he
was confronted with an absurd ad hominem [ Latin for personal abuse -
Editor ] which likened the critics of
Lincoln to fascists. DiLorenzo takes the bull by the horns, and
illustrates how Lincoln and Hitler have more in common on their
understanding of state sovereignty and the nature of the Union.
Likewise, political radicals like Karl Marx were not congratulating
Jefferson Davis on his election, but rather Abraham Lincoln.
Politically-correct critics can also take their usual jabs and punches,
and call it a 'revisionist work,' but in the wake of the late War
between the States, many scholars including northerners had challenged
the Lincoln legacy in the immediate aftermath of the war. Lincoln
frankly was not that popular overall in his time, and the cult of
Lincoln came long after his death.
All things considered, this is a well-researched read, but no substitute
for the first DiLorenzo book on Lincoln. Though, I highly recommend it.
DiLorenzo is to be commended for his scholarship.
"Sir, We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a
large majority."
--Karl Marx on behalf of the International Working Men's Association,
addressed to Abraham Lincoln
Comment | Was
this review helpful to you?
What is this Lincoln cult that DiLorenzo speaks of? Last time I checked, pro-Southerners
like Shelby Foote (RIP) were saying the same admiring things about Lincoln as
all the Lincoln jock riders that DiLorenzo despises so much.
Seriously, I have no problem with bringing Lincoln to task for his mistakes --
but this guy seems to know absolutely nothing about the political and social
context of the civil war years.
Secession is legal: Even the doughfaces in Buchanan's cabinet though [ sic ] the union
unbreakable--as did most of Lincoln's own party. Secession is criminal -- so
said James Madison. If he doesn't know what's constitutional, who does? Read
Chisholm vs. Georgia 1793, McCullough vs. Maryland 1819. Or Webster. Or better
yet, Andrew Jackson.
Tariffs: The total revenues of the Federal government in 1860 amounted to $56
million with a population of 34 million. Federal taxation per capita amounted to
less than $2 per person. Yes, the Slavocracy were lightly taxed on luxury goods
imported into the south -- goods that they "earned" by wringing their bread from
the sweat of other men's faces. Then again, the Federal government before the
war lost close to 9 million dollars every year delivering mail in the south
because of decaying roads and an archaic transportation system. (They profited
heavily in the more modernized north.) What's funnier than hell is that the
Confederacy itself placed tariffs on exports. Hypocritical.
civil liberties: Yes, evil King Lincoln suspended habeas corpus -- actually he
was goaded into it by Seward, who feared an invasion of the capitol. Jefferson
Davis suspended habeas corpus, too. What does DiLorenzo think about that?
Unfortunately, DiLorenzo hardly ever brings up the virtual identical actions of
the Confederacy or the fact that liberty was stepping on even harder during the
Revolutionary War (thanks, in no small part, to DiLorenzo's hero, Thomas
Jefferson (read Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Dark Side).
Jeff Davis -- responsible for conscription, martial law, suspending habeas
corpus, shutting down newspapers and making southerners carry id cards.
Confederate jails were filled with men like Parson Brownlow of the Knoxville
Whig, who rotted in one of the Confederacy's "libertarian" prisons for two years
for describing the average southern soldier as brainwashed by the Slavocracy,
dirt poor yet bragging that he should be allowed to bring his slaves into the
territories.
colonization: Actually DiLorenzo's hero Thomas Jefferson, in one of his more
antislavery moments, was the first president to mention colonization as an
effective solution to the race problem. Lincoln went along with it -- even the
most militant abolitionists like Chase supported colonization -- publicly until
he got Northerns to grudgingly accept the idea of enlisting black troops, then
never spoke of colonization again.
