Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims either by force or right."--Alexis de TocquevilleI teach American history at a community college. The country that our Founding Fathers established, politically, is much different from the country we have today. Most Americans, if they even think about our early history, interpret it through the current nationalistic perspective. "The Union is inviolable." Thus, the South was wrong for breaking it, the North (and Lincoln) to be honored for preserving it.It's not quite that easy. Contrary to one review of this book, the right to secede was almost taken for granted in early America. Our Founding Fathers seceded from England; who could deny the same right to others who did not "consent" to the government they lived under? Texas seceded from Mexico, and that was ok, too; that state joined the Union. But the South couldn't secede from the Union? That's really what the Civil War was fought about. It was actually the North, more often than not, that wanted to secede early in our history. Vermont threatened to secede over the Louisiana Purchase. Massachusetts threatened to secede over the Embargo Act of 1807, the War of 1812, and the annexation of Texas in 1845. Secession as a right was taught to the cadets at West Point. Jefferson, Hamilton, even Lincoln said it was a right that was "to liberate the world." Yet increasingly, as the 1800s drew on, "Union" became more sacred, especially as the financial ties between North and South deepened. Yet, even when the South seceded, many, many Northerners argued that they had the right to do it, and wanted to let them go. The Civil War destroyed that right, once and for all. It was a different country then, and most Americans don't understand it, mainly due (at least according to this book, and probably rightfully so) to being taught, in school, the "nationalist" interpretation of America. The North won the war. Winners get to write the history.Now the losers are starting to speak up. And some of the winners don't like it.Thomas Dilorenzo's "Lincoln Unmasked" is a highly unfavorable, interpretive look at Abraham Lincoln. This is not the only book that a person should read about Abraham Lincoln; one would come away with a rather distorted view of our 16th President if that were the case. Dilorenzo presupposes some knowledge of early American history in this work; those who don't have it probably won't understand the book very well and see it only as a negative screed. Yet Dilorenzo is writing from his understanding of what the Founding Fathers created--states' rights, limited government, free market economics, an America that minds its own business and avoids "entangling alliances." Dilorenzo argues that Lincoln and the Civil War destroyed that America and replaced it with an all-sovereign, omnipotent federal government, which has had no restraints upon it in mushrooming into the Leviathan we have today. Dilorenzo doesn't like this current government, and largely blames Abraham Lincoln for it. Those who like the current American government won't like this book.Abraham Lincoln was a human being, a product of the 19th century, and a politician--a very good one. Dilorenzo attempts to "humanize" Lincoln some, by showing the issues that bound Lincoln to the Republican party and thus demanded he go to war to keep the South in the Union, resulting in the all-powerful federal government we have. And he demonstrates how many today use Lincoln to justify active government involvement, here at home and abroad. There are no new facts in Dilorenzo's book; what he does is interpret them from his understanding of what the Founding Fathers established and how Abraham Lincoln destroyed that. Other Lincoln biographies will often refer to the same facts (suspension of habeus corpus, for example), but if they applaud the Civil War and the current American system, they will simply see Lincoln's actions as necessary to win the war and preserve the Union. Those who accept the latter view will NOT like this book, as you will see from some of the reviews of it here.Love this book or hate it, Dilorenzo will make you think. Please don't listen to the reviewers who try to tell you this book is trash. It's not, far from it. You may not agree with it, but it's a worth a read and it's worth investigating whether Dilorenzo's understanding of the Founding Fathers and early America is correct.

Wow, what an absolutely amazing book! I have heard many lecture, read many smaller writings, and discovered so, so many truths about Lincoln over the past 20 years, and because of that I have never actually read a full treatise on him from start to finish (figuring I knew so much already). Well, I will say that most all of the topics in this book I was already aware of general thoughts about, but for once they all came together into one theme of why and how things went down.The author pulls so many other resources into this story, that this becomes not just his opinion, but a good mixture from multiple scholars, showing DiLorenzo is not just delivering his own personal attack on Lincoln. This book (and so many others) should be mandatory reading for all school students - but alas that would go against the main reasons the government school teach historical lies to begin with.As he points out, the Lincoln cult gatekeepers have been quite successful in keeping the truth under wraps from the public eye, and they surely hope that books like this make little impact on the public view. As I said, I have known many of these facts for decades, and find it so sad that there are so many people who are still so ignorant and deceived about how Lincoln intentionally destroyed this nation from its founding principles and establishment. This book shows how that was the exact intent of Lincoln and his people, and how they sought to do so for decades before his election and the war.DiLorenzo looks at the early years of Lincoln as an attorney for the major railroads, and the economic goals of his ilk. He examines in detail the economic idea and affects of the tariffs that were fought to get into place, and how those led to the war. Honestly, any body who knows anything about the War Between the States time frame, and still tries to propagate an idea of the war being over slavery is just so sadly deluded, and a good government school bred "citizen."The author does a great job of giving a brief overview and exposition of the sad attempts by modern "scholars" who continue spewing forth the myths and lies about Lincoln and the socialistic party ideas that have been rebutted and destroyed time and time again by real historians.If you are so uninformed as to still feel that the war was fought over Southern slavery, or that Lincoln was "the great emancipator" or lover of the black race, or (God forbid) a good Christian man, then this book is a great starting point for you to get some real education. Not only will you get some truth, but you also will get an extensive listing of a wealth of other resource material from other sources that will likewise assist in dispelling the myths of Lincoln and those of the "Lincoln cult" that works so hard today to keep you ignorant.

Yes and three cheers for Tom DiLorenzo who seemingly single handed is sticking it on this blood thirsty monster. It would be nice to see Tom stick the boot in Winston Churchill like he does here for Lincoln. But Lincoln is ripped apart and its lovely to read. A fine companion volume to Toms other book "The real Lincoln".

Lincoln is not the saintly character that is normally portrayed. He pursued an unconstitutional war against the right of the the Southern States to secede and in which hundreds of thousands died, including civilians. This was not to rid the United States of slavery - that became a convenient figleaf. (Lincoln was a white supremacist who wanted to send the blacks to Liberia or Haiti - anywhere but the US.) The real reason for the war was to shift power from the States to the federal government in Washington and create a Republic.

The most important idea this book holds is that the American civil war was a tariff war and not so much about slavery. Also interesting is the idea that most countries managed to abolish slavery peacefully. Lincoln needed a war to accomplish it and it seems a better statesman could have done so peacefully. I still like to study Lincoln as a versatile, adaptible and cunning and well-versed politician, but I'm starting to have serious doubts about his 'good' intentions. Good book.Behind the book are very neo-liberal ideas by the way. Which wasn't a plus for me, but a turn-off. As a book on Lincoln I liked it. If the book's hidden message is that we need more 'trickle down economy' I don't.

Why should we know it? Because it explains so many things that never made sense before. For example, Lincoln was the main lawyer for the railroad companies, a fact not generally publicised because that puts him clearly at the forefront of the government/business relationship that turned a formerly Jeffersonian, free enterprise nation into a bloated bureaucracy bullying state nation, where the government's business became helping big business succeed no matter what it took. It was Lincoln's high flying railroad career that allowed him to court Mary Todd, as The Todds of Lexington would never have allowed a mere country lawyer to see their daughter. I know, I used to live there.The book details many parts and aspects of the Lincoln story and his part in completely altering the character of the US, virtually eliminating states' rights which had been predominant before his presidency. It shows that the kindly Lincoln figure is not much but an invention of those historians who like the grandiose views of "the state", where the real Lincoln, for example, had the black leaders of the day to his office in 1863 and tried to convince them to take their followers and move to Liberia, out of the US as Mr. Lincoln had little use for black folks; which was evidenced also by his support for the free soil movement... one that prohibited blacks in the "new" territories.The book also references additional volumes by other authors to find more information on Lincoln that is not plagued by the colouration of the historians who have made their careers kindly describing a man who purposefully began a war that cost 620,000 lives and subjugated the nation to an overweening government unlike any that had come before it.However, if you are a statist and love big government, this may not be the book for you.

What's so remarkable about this well-annotated and researched book isn't the fact that the nation, as a constitutionally-limited republic, was lost during Lincoln's term, and that he was the prime cause of that loss. What IS so remarkable is that the press, the government education system and a whole host of other deceitful characters and institutions have covered up and hidden this fact.That's remarkable and very, very sad. The united States isn't any more.