What do you think?
Rate this book
The Problem with Lincoln: The False Virtue of Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln was widely and deeply unpopular during his presidency. And for good reason.
He overturned our original constitutional order, violated the rights of Americans both North and South, massively inflated the federal government, and plunged the nation into a wholly unnecessary war. Why? Not to free the slaves, as his hagiographers would have you believe, but out of personal ambition, greed for power, and, incidentally, to enrich the railroad interests that supported his political career.
Court historians have turned King Lincoln into a secular saint, but what did Abraham Lincoln’s contemporaries know that has been forgotten or covered up? Bestselling author Thomas J. DiLorenzo debunks the pious myths to reveal the real Lincoln.
In The Problem with Lincoln, you’ll learn:
Why Lincoln was willing to accept a constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery forever
Why no American in 1861, Northerner or Southerner, believed that Lincoln had invaded the South to emancipate the slaves
Why secession doesn’t fit the Constitution’s definition of treason—but Lincoln’s war on the South does
Lincoln’s greatest failure: not ending slavery peacefully, as the rest of the world managed to do
If you want the unvarnished truth about our sixteenth president, read The Problem with Lincoln.
He overturned our original constitutional order, violated the rights of Americans both North and South, massively inflated the federal government, and plunged the nation into a wholly unnecessary war. Why? Not to free the slaves, as his hagiographers would have you believe, but out of personal ambition, greed for power, and, incidentally, to enrich the railroad interests that supported his political career.
Court historians have turned King Lincoln into a secular saint, but what did Abraham Lincoln’s contemporaries know that has been forgotten or covered up? Bestselling author Thomas J. DiLorenzo debunks the pious myths to reveal the real Lincoln.
In The Problem with Lincoln, you’ll learn:
Why Lincoln was willing to accept a constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery forever
Why no American in 1861, Northerner or Southerner, believed that Lincoln had invaded the South to emancipate the slaves
Why secession doesn’t fit the Constitution’s definition of treason—but Lincoln’s war on the South does
Lincoln’s greatest failure: not ending slavery peacefully, as the rest of the world managed to do
If you want the unvarnished truth about our sixteenth president, read The Problem with Lincoln.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published July 7, 2020
54 people are currently reading
218 people want to read
About the author
Thomas J. DiLorenzo
34 books196 followersThomas James DiLorenzo is an American economics professor at Loyola University Maryland. He identifies himself as an adherent of the Austrian School of economics. He is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and an associated scholar of the Abbeville Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Virginia Tech.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
November 7, 2020
Let me start by saying that ANY negative book about Lincoln is considered blasphemy to the Lincoln lovers. Lincoln is an interesting man, not so much for positive things he did but more for how he is claimed by both political parties here in the US as well as, ironically, tyrants of the rest of the world.
The Republicans love to claim Lincoln as their way of proving they are not racist and the Democrats need to keep Lincoln as a savior since they claim, falsely that the two parties swapped. The problem runs much deeper. There are many "dismissed" issues of what Lincoln did that are the third-rail for the Lincoln Lovers. Such as the letter he wrote to Horace Greeley
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
It is clear to anyone during cursory research that the "Civil War" was in fact NOT fought to end slavery. Lincoln clearly did not care one-way or the other about slavery. Slavery was a tool for Lincoln to cover up his tyrannical ways of governing. Here is the rub:
Lincoln allowed slavery in 4 States during the "War to End Slavery" Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri and the newly, unlawfully created West Virginia.
Suspension of Habeas Corpus
Either invaded and attacked his own country men if they were still part of the Union or was an invader to the South and declared total war. It can't be both. One is treason and the other is a war crime.
Declared total war on citizens that had nothing to do with the war save that they lived in the South.
Supported, upheld and enforced the Fugitive Slave Act.
There are so many more examples. However I WILL say that the slaves' plight was advanced in fact because of those moves Lincoln made regardless of WHY he did them.
I understand that Lincoln Lovers think badly about Mr. DiLorenzo. You can absolutely disagree with him, but if you look at the facts, they are true.
Sadly our history is being re-written to support the victim mindset and as we all know, history repeats itself. I would rather have books, statues, songs, movies, et al reminding us of how abhorrent slavery was and where we have come. A read a book by Adam Corrola and in it, he talks about the "Progressive" movement. He uses the analogy of smoking in a restaurant. You use to be able to smoke in a restaurant. Then there was a smoking and non-smoking section, then they said you can only smoke by the bar, then they said you had to smoke outside, then they said you were too close to the entrance and you had to walk down the street. It reminds my of this great country or what was once a great country. Sadly the US has become a Banana Republic where corruption reins supreme. We now have voter fraud (you can say no, but we all have seen the videos), state run media where they cover for one party and lie about the other, and a social media that crushes free speech. The saddest thing about it, is that there is no putting that genie back in the bottle
The Republicans love to claim Lincoln as their way of proving they are not racist and the Democrats need to keep Lincoln as a savior since they claim, falsely that the two parties swapped. The problem runs much deeper. There are many "dismissed" issues of what Lincoln did that are the third-rail for the Lincoln Lovers. Such as the letter he wrote to Horace Greeley
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
It is clear to anyone during cursory research that the "Civil War" was in fact NOT fought to end slavery. Lincoln clearly did not care one-way or the other about slavery. Slavery was a tool for Lincoln to cover up his tyrannical ways of governing. Here is the rub:
Lincoln allowed slavery in 4 States during the "War to End Slavery" Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri and the newly, unlawfully created West Virginia.
Suspension of Habeas Corpus
Either invaded and attacked his own country men if they were still part of the Union or was an invader to the South and declared total war. It can't be both. One is treason and the other is a war crime.
Declared total war on citizens that had nothing to do with the war save that they lived in the South.
Supported, upheld and enforced the Fugitive Slave Act.
There are so many more examples. However I WILL say that the slaves' plight was advanced in fact because of those moves Lincoln made regardless of WHY he did them.
I understand that Lincoln Lovers think badly about Mr. DiLorenzo. You can absolutely disagree with him, but if you look at the facts, they are true.
Sadly our history is being re-written to support the victim mindset and as we all know, history repeats itself. I would rather have books, statues, songs, movies, et al reminding us of how abhorrent slavery was and where we have come. A read a book by Adam Corrola and in it, he talks about the "Progressive" movement. He uses the analogy of smoking in a restaurant. You use to be able to smoke in a restaurant. Then there was a smoking and non-smoking section, then they said you can only smoke by the bar, then they said you had to smoke outside, then they said you were too close to the entrance and you had to walk down the street. It reminds my of this great country or what was once a great country. Sadly the US has become a Banana Republic where corruption reins supreme. We now have voter fraud (you can say no, but we all have seen the videos), state run media where they cover for one party and lie about the other, and a social media that crushes free speech. The saddest thing about it, is that there is no putting that genie back in the bottle
May 28, 2021
Fantasy, revisionist trash. The south wanted to keep slavery and was willing to go to war for it, a war they paid for dearly. If the south suffered because they broke the covenant that created the United States-they got what they deserved. Slavery was obsolete by 1860, when Lincoln was elected, thanks to the industrial revolution. The southerners were just too stubborn and set in their old ways to understand and accept this. This book is tantamount to writing a history of the Holocaust from the point of view of the Nazis. Terrible, unfactual book perfect for this time when too many Americans are giving in to hate and ignorance.
January 10, 2021
In "The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left," Dinesh D'Souza explains that while slavery was abolished in the US under the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, the Democratic party, on the other hand, was the party of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, and Jim Crow. In order to absolve themselves of this embarrassing history, the American left invented a big lie: That the two parties somehow switched, such that the Republican party is now the party of racism, while that Democratic party is now the party against racism.
While all this may be true, DiLorenzo points out that D'Sousa may be giving Lincoln too much credit. Most people believe that the American Civil War was primarily a conflict over slavery. However, slavery was not why Lincoln launched war, and he said so himself!
The primary issue was taxes. Specifically, the Southern States were tired of paying a disproportionate share of the country's tariffs, especially since that tax revenue was being spent disproportionately in the north. When the federal government attempted to dramatically increase the amount paid on tariffs in the 1860's, the Southern States responded by leaving the union.
Were the Southern States allowed to leave the Union? Lincoln seemed to believe that they had no right to do so. But the Southern States argued that they were allowed to do anything that was not forbidden by the Constitution, and if they had known that they were not allowed to leave, then they never would have joined the Union in the first place.
All this raises an interesting question: Was it really a civil war? If the Southern States had no right to secede, then they were still part of the United States, and it really was a civil war. However, if the Southern States did have the right to secede, then it was not a civil war at all but an invasion. DiLorenzo prefers to call it "The War to Prevent Southern Secession."
Did slavery really have nothing to do with it? Not quite... After one or two years of fighting, the body bags started to pile up, and it became obvious to the Republican government that they needed a noble objective for the war. That's when the war became about slavery. But keep in mind that with the exception of Haiti, the United States was the only country in the western hemisphere to abolish slavery through war, and at a cost of 700 000 lives. Every other country abolished slavery peacefully. In the British Empire, slave owners were compensated for the liberation of their slaves, and although you might think that slave owners deserve nothing, the fact remains that the British abolished slavery in their colonies without having to resort to war at all. Indeed, it would have been cheaper to compensate American slave owners for the liberation of their slaves than to fight the war, with its astronomical expenses, devastating destruction, and loss of human life. (In Haiti, slavery ended when a slave uprising killed almost every European on the island.)
But Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation, right? Yes... However, this was a temporary war measure that did not free every slave in the United States, but only those living in the Southern States that had separated themselves from the Union. The slaves who lived in the Southern States that had remained part of the Union were not freed. Why not? Because Lincoln was hoping that the Emancipation Proclamation would weaken the Confederacy through slave uprisings, thereby helping the Republicans to win the war and save the Union. In fact, all slaves were not freed until the signing of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Finally, DiLorenzo describes General "Sherman's March to the Sea" in its unprecedented destruction of private and public property and total lack of concern for the non-combatant civilian population of the South, all of which was approved by Lincoln.
The appendix of the book contains several primary sources, including the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln's eye-opening inaugural address.
While all this may be true, DiLorenzo points out that D'Sousa may be giving Lincoln too much credit. Most people believe that the American Civil War was primarily a conflict over slavery. However, slavery was not why Lincoln launched war, and he said so himself!
The primary issue was taxes. Specifically, the Southern States were tired of paying a disproportionate share of the country's tariffs, especially since that tax revenue was being spent disproportionately in the north. When the federal government attempted to dramatically increase the amount paid on tariffs in the 1860's, the Southern States responded by leaving the union.
Were the Southern States allowed to leave the Union? Lincoln seemed to believe that they had no right to do so. But the Southern States argued that they were allowed to do anything that was not forbidden by the Constitution, and if they had known that they were not allowed to leave, then they never would have joined the Union in the first place.
All this raises an interesting question: Was it really a civil war? If the Southern States had no right to secede, then they were still part of the United States, and it really was a civil war. However, if the Southern States did have the right to secede, then it was not a civil war at all but an invasion. DiLorenzo prefers to call it "The War to Prevent Southern Secession."
Did slavery really have nothing to do with it? Not quite... After one or two years of fighting, the body bags started to pile up, and it became obvious to the Republican government that they needed a noble objective for the war. That's when the war became about slavery. But keep in mind that with the exception of Haiti, the United States was the only country in the western hemisphere to abolish slavery through war, and at a cost of 700 000 lives. Every other country abolished slavery peacefully. In the British Empire, slave owners were compensated for the liberation of their slaves, and although you might think that slave owners deserve nothing, the fact remains that the British abolished slavery in their colonies without having to resort to war at all. Indeed, it would have been cheaper to compensate American slave owners for the liberation of their slaves than to fight the war, with its astronomical expenses, devastating destruction, and loss of human life. (In Haiti, slavery ended when a slave uprising killed almost every European on the island.)
But Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation, right? Yes... However, this was a temporary war measure that did not free every slave in the United States, but only those living in the Southern States that had separated themselves from the Union. The slaves who lived in the Southern States that had remained part of the Union were not freed. Why not? Because Lincoln was hoping that the Emancipation Proclamation would weaken the Confederacy through slave uprisings, thereby helping the Republicans to win the war and save the Union. In fact, all slaves were not freed until the signing of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Finally, DiLorenzo describes General "Sherman's March to the Sea" in its unprecedented destruction of private and public property and total lack of concern for the non-combatant civilian population of the South, all of which was approved by Lincoln.
The appendix of the book contains several primary sources, including the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln's eye-opening inaugural address.
October 30, 2024
I will lay out in advance that I picked up this book anticipating several hundred pages of pure rubbish—the premise of obliterating President Lincoln in 240 or so pages and turning established U.S. history on its head is churlish—but I enjoy a good pie-in-the-face argument, and I believe whole-heartedly in giving any lousy argument a solid day in court, as specious theses always inspire critical thinking, if only to exercise that part of the mind that spots holes in logic. The Problem with Lincoln is a profoundly foolish book, and rather sadly so, for DiLorenzo has some sound logic buried in the depths of his raging tantrums. Abraham Lincoln was certainly no woke 21st century social justice warrior, and he definitely subverted law and constitution repeatedly during his presidency. I am all for a reevaluation of Lincoln's virtue, and would be quick to cast aspersion on those who hold him up as the greatest of American presidents. Alas, DiLorenzo hasn't written this book as a thoughtful work of historiography, evaluating Lincoln in time and context for the benefit of posterity. Rather, he has ruthlessly cherry-picked the historical record to proclaim a preconceived, ideological perspective, and frequently breaks the fourth wall of historical essay to assert his own, modern political ideals.
A few quick examples illustrate this point:
DiLorenzo enjoys hyperbolic assertions that the American Civil War saw more war deaths than all other American wars combined. This is rubbish. Even if you embrace the modern upper estimate of 800k or so war dead, you exceed the figure by adding together Vietnam, WW2, WW1, 1812, the Revolution, and a modern corrected Korean war figure—which sum omits quite a few American wars. Maybe DiLorenzo thinks smallpox deaths from the Rev War don't count? He does include disease deaths from the Civil War...
DiLorenzo often talks about the wanton destruction of Confederate property in the Civil War and the many acts of cruelty and murder perpetrated against civilians by the United States' army. He focuses particularly on Sherman's march through South Carolina and on a few scattered incidents in Missouri. These were, in fact, among the most severe acts of aggression against civilians in the entire war. The Civil War is actually rather a standout war for its marked peacefulness toward civilians. There were extremely few reported acts of sexual violence—the account DiLorenzo relates of a "gang rape" of an African American woman was the only rape that took place in the entire campaign mentioned, and was a noted scandal—and destruction of civilian property was relatively contained, especially in the context of a war of such length and violence.
Numerous times in the text DiLorenzo compares Lincoln's government to modern America and decries political developments in the nation in a manner that exposes his own politics, which really has no place in a historical essay...
Many of DiLorenzo's arguments lack proper historical context, and others have some basis in historical fact but are exaggerated. Abraham Lincoln was certainly no saint when it came to race in America. He loved Artemis Ward's racist comic writing, and believed to the end of his days that black people and white people should not share a nation and that African Americans should be colonized back to Africa or the Caribbean or Central America. These were not standout beliefs for a person in the Victorian Era, and Lincoln was a noted centrist. Media like Spielberg's movie "Lincoln" certainly whitewash the record. Nevertheless, Lincoln pressed for limits on the expansion of slavery throughout his political career, and took a leading role in advocating the elimination of slavery. There were certainly economic reasons that profited white labor for his advocacy, but it is also true that he downplayed his abolitionist aspirations to make himself more palatable to racists throughout the nation. DiLorenzo's writing is misleading and sometimes very willfully so.
DiLorenzo argues that all of the other nations in the world abolished slavery without bloodshed and Lincoln could have done so too. This is specious and ridiculous. In Without Contract or Consent, Robert Fogel convincingly demonstrates the extreme profitability of American slavery. The cotton gin and the coordinated work-team employment of slaves—similar to the assembly line—made American slavery extremely profitable by the mid 19th century, and there was absolutely no incentive to eliminate the "peculiar institution." Slave aristocrats could not have been persuaded to sell their slaves or give up the institution short of force. There is an overwhelming literature of utopian arguments justifying slavery, from John Calhoun to Edmund Ruffin, etc. This section of the book is pure fantasy garbage. Over and over DiLorenzo points to the greedy, big-business interests of Lincoln and his Republican allies, but he perpetually overlooks and ignores the greed and profit motives of the secessionist slave aristocrats. It is not fair scholarship to cherry pick the record like this.
Lincoln had no religion, DiLorenzo would have us believe. There is a ample evidence in the historic record that Lincoln was an agnostic or atheist at the beginning of the war and that the humbling experience of overseeing the war grew his attachment to God and Christianity. There are statistics attesting to the growth of references to God and religion in Lincoln's writing near the end of his life. I wouldn't say he was some great Christian philosopher, but the insistence that he was an atheist to the end is ludicrous.
DiLorenzo makes clear over and over that he is a huge fan of the weak central government of the original constitution, and he loves quoting Jefferson and, to a lesser extent, Madison. Well, the weak central government these founding fathers argued for proved to be a huge problem for them in their own presidencies. Madison had a hellish time navigating the War of 1812, because he couldn't raise money for an army to support American interests, and the private loans he had to draw on to hire militia were so corrupt and ineffective, that the Capital was lost and burned and the war was largely a fiasco. Jefferson was a very strange character, constantly asserting the rights of ordinary citizens while enjoying enormous personal wealth in slaves and ultimately lavishly outspending his own resources and having to sell off much of his land before his own death.
DiLorenzo argues that there was no legal foundation for an argument that the Constitution could not be dissolved through secession—that it was a fully voluntary compact. Yet, he oddly omits any serious consideration of the aggressive coercion that the several states used to force Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution. When Rhode Island, nicknamed "Rogue Island," refused to join the other states in conceding to the Constitution, the other states threatened a full-scale embargo of Rhode Island, with aggressive rhetoric that escalating quite nastily. Was it really a voluntary Union? Or was it a forceful power grab by a centralized federal government from the start? I'm not sure I know, and a good scholar ought to have more humility.
Finally, DiLorenzo argues several times that secession wasn't a big deal—that other representative democracies have suffered internal divisions without enduring dissipation. But those governments divided on the basis of differing cultures or regional ethnic division. The United States' secession crisis was a showdown over whether a dissenting minority could dissolve the body politic because they didn't like the outcome of a free and fair election. I can't think of another example like this in all of history, and if the South had won, it would legitimately have threatened the power of representative government. That's why the Union boys turned out in such huge numbers of devoted volunteers who fought so bravely and fiercely for so long—because they believed that something sacred was at stake.
I am sorry to have to give this book 1 star. DiLorenzo's dishonesty and poor scholarship obscures some good arguments and intelligent appreciation of nuances in the history. Abraham Lincoln was no saint, and the Republican party of 1860 was definitely engaging in a centralizing power grab that trampled constitutional rights, but DiLorenzo tries to paint matters with a black and white approach that obscures the dimensional nuance of what was actually a very complicated conflict overseen by a thoughtful and very complicated chief executive. The hagiography of Lincoln is problematic, but this sort of vilification is at least as bad. This book is no sincere effort to arrive at historic truth, but instead is the published rant of a strange political personality who is drawing on cherry-picked bits of historic fact to assert a myopic and distorted political ideology.
A few quick examples illustrate this point:
DiLorenzo enjoys hyperbolic assertions that the American Civil War saw more war deaths than all other American wars combined. This is rubbish. Even if you embrace the modern upper estimate of 800k or so war dead, you exceed the figure by adding together Vietnam, WW2, WW1, 1812, the Revolution, and a modern corrected Korean war figure—which sum omits quite a few American wars. Maybe DiLorenzo thinks smallpox deaths from the Rev War don't count? He does include disease deaths from the Civil War...
DiLorenzo often talks about the wanton destruction of Confederate property in the Civil War and the many acts of cruelty and murder perpetrated against civilians by the United States' army. He focuses particularly on Sherman's march through South Carolina and on a few scattered incidents in Missouri. These were, in fact, among the most severe acts of aggression against civilians in the entire war. The Civil War is actually rather a standout war for its marked peacefulness toward civilians. There were extremely few reported acts of sexual violence—the account DiLorenzo relates of a "gang rape" of an African American woman was the only rape that took place in the entire campaign mentioned, and was a noted scandal—and destruction of civilian property was relatively contained, especially in the context of a war of such length and violence.
Numerous times in the text DiLorenzo compares Lincoln's government to modern America and decries political developments in the nation in a manner that exposes his own politics, which really has no place in a historical essay...
Many of DiLorenzo's arguments lack proper historical context, and others have some basis in historical fact but are exaggerated. Abraham Lincoln was certainly no saint when it came to race in America. He loved Artemis Ward's racist comic writing, and believed to the end of his days that black people and white people should not share a nation and that African Americans should be colonized back to Africa or the Caribbean or Central America. These were not standout beliefs for a person in the Victorian Era, and Lincoln was a noted centrist. Media like Spielberg's movie "Lincoln" certainly whitewash the record. Nevertheless, Lincoln pressed for limits on the expansion of slavery throughout his political career, and took a leading role in advocating the elimination of slavery. There were certainly economic reasons that profited white labor for his advocacy, but it is also true that he downplayed his abolitionist aspirations to make himself more palatable to racists throughout the nation. DiLorenzo's writing is misleading and sometimes very willfully so.
DiLorenzo argues that all of the other nations in the world abolished slavery without bloodshed and Lincoln could have done so too. This is specious and ridiculous. In Without Contract or Consent, Robert Fogel convincingly demonstrates the extreme profitability of American slavery. The cotton gin and the coordinated work-team employment of slaves—similar to the assembly line—made American slavery extremely profitable by the mid 19th century, and there was absolutely no incentive to eliminate the "peculiar institution." Slave aristocrats could not have been persuaded to sell their slaves or give up the institution short of force. There is an overwhelming literature of utopian arguments justifying slavery, from John Calhoun to Edmund Ruffin, etc. This section of the book is pure fantasy garbage. Over and over DiLorenzo points to the greedy, big-business interests of Lincoln and his Republican allies, but he perpetually overlooks and ignores the greed and profit motives of the secessionist slave aristocrats. It is not fair scholarship to cherry pick the record like this.
Lincoln had no religion, DiLorenzo would have us believe. There is a ample evidence in the historic record that Lincoln was an agnostic or atheist at the beginning of the war and that the humbling experience of overseeing the war grew his attachment to God and Christianity. There are statistics attesting to the growth of references to God and religion in Lincoln's writing near the end of his life. I wouldn't say he was some great Christian philosopher, but the insistence that he was an atheist to the end is ludicrous.
DiLorenzo makes clear over and over that he is a huge fan of the weak central government of the original constitution, and he loves quoting Jefferson and, to a lesser extent, Madison. Well, the weak central government these founding fathers argued for proved to be a huge problem for them in their own presidencies. Madison had a hellish time navigating the War of 1812, because he couldn't raise money for an army to support American interests, and the private loans he had to draw on to hire militia were so corrupt and ineffective, that the Capital was lost and burned and the war was largely a fiasco. Jefferson was a very strange character, constantly asserting the rights of ordinary citizens while enjoying enormous personal wealth in slaves and ultimately lavishly outspending his own resources and having to sell off much of his land before his own death.
DiLorenzo argues that there was no legal foundation for an argument that the Constitution could not be dissolved through secession—that it was a fully voluntary compact. Yet, he oddly omits any serious consideration of the aggressive coercion that the several states used to force Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution. When Rhode Island, nicknamed "Rogue Island," refused to join the other states in conceding to the Constitution, the other states threatened a full-scale embargo of Rhode Island, with aggressive rhetoric that escalating quite nastily. Was it really a voluntary Union? Or was it a forceful power grab by a centralized federal government from the start? I'm not sure I know, and a good scholar ought to have more humility.
Finally, DiLorenzo argues several times that secession wasn't a big deal—that other representative democracies have suffered internal divisions without enduring dissipation. But those governments divided on the basis of differing cultures or regional ethnic division. The United States' secession crisis was a showdown over whether a dissenting minority could dissolve the body politic because they didn't like the outcome of a free and fair election. I can't think of another example like this in all of history, and if the South had won, it would legitimately have threatened the power of representative government. That's why the Union boys turned out in such huge numbers of devoted volunteers who fought so bravely and fiercely for so long—because they believed that something sacred was at stake.
I am sorry to have to give this book 1 star. DiLorenzo's dishonesty and poor scholarship obscures some good arguments and intelligent appreciation of nuances in the history. Abraham Lincoln was no saint, and the Republican party of 1860 was definitely engaging in a centralizing power grab that trampled constitutional rights, but DiLorenzo tries to paint matters with a black and white approach that obscures the dimensional nuance of what was actually a very complicated conflict overseen by a thoughtful and very complicated chief executive. The hagiography of Lincoln is problematic, but this sort of vilification is at least as bad. This book is no sincere effort to arrive at historic truth, but instead is the published rant of a strange political personality who is drawing on cherry-picked bits of historic fact to assert a myopic and distorted political ideology.
May 2, 2021
This is a special review for you homeschooling moms out there. Most of all, you Christian homeschooling moms. Please read this book. Please do your self and your kids the favor and read this book. You don’t have to believe all of it, but you should read it so you can better teach your kids different perspectives on history. It’s so easy to buy the curriculum and just let it do all the work for you, but it does a disservice to your child. You say “but it’s a good Christian curriculum so I trust it”. That is laziness on the part of you mom, and teaching that “honest Abe was a Christian humanitarian” is greatly ignorant. I my self was homeschooled as a child, and I learned he was a great Christian leader. The best president. The president like Moses leading his people and holding it all together. You can believe that, but do your self the favor and read this book and have talks with your kids that others disagree in such points, and his behavior doesn’t back up that of Christianity.
November 19, 2021
While I can appreciate a well-thought out contrarian viewpoint, it is unfortunate that DiLorenzo goes over top in several places, including the use of loaded language, hyperbole, and outright name-calling of several scholars and historians. I think he could have made his points better without all of that.
Unfortunately, many of DiLorenzo’s arguments throughout the book rest on the assumption that individual states have a right to unilaterally nullify federal laws and/or secede from the union. To this end, DiLorenzo cites three examples of states' ratifying documents (only one of which, Virginia, was an actual seceding state) supposedly reserving right to retain and later regain powers delegated to the federal government. His theory is that by the federal government accepting these states into the union, it was implied that these conditions were accepted - and furthermore, since no state can have greater rights than others, then all other states retain the same rights as well. The problem is that this logic falls apart in that although, yes, the Constitution is silent on the issue of unilateral secession, it is likewise silent on states being able to ratify with conditions. And taking his argument as true that no state can have greater rights than others, this would render any such attempted conditions of ratification as null and void.
As a practical matter, it is ludicrous to believe that a state can come and go as it pleases. There cannot be stability in allowing a state to scoop up benefits without an assurance that it will give back in return. I can't help but to think back to the kid who threatens to take his ball and go home if he doesn’t get his way. There has to be reliance among the states that all other states will hold up their end of the bargain in order for the compact to function properly. If a state interferes with the federal government’s exercise of its jurisdiction within its borders, why wouldn’t the federal government have the right to restore order with military force? DiLorenzo argues that South Carolina did offer to pay for the federal property it wanted to seize - but so what?
This also reminds me of his argument that the federal government could have bought the freedom of all the slaves. I suppose we could go around and around on all kinds of possibilities of what could have happened, but in all these scenarios, it would have taken all sides to come to the table to agree. Anyone who is familiar with antebellum history knows that just wasn't going to happen. Just like today, back then it was like pulling teeth just getting any basic appropriation bills out of Congress, and there is no chance that the southern states would have even entertained such a proposal.
I agree that the popular view of Lincoln can often be overly hagiographic. However, I have read several biographies of other figures from this era and those authors aren’t shy about heaping criticism upon Lincoln. The notion that society won't stand for ANY criticism of Lincoln I believe is hyperbolic.
Unfortunately, many of DiLorenzo’s arguments throughout the book rest on the assumption that individual states have a right to unilaterally nullify federal laws and/or secede from the union. To this end, DiLorenzo cites three examples of states' ratifying documents (only one of which, Virginia, was an actual seceding state) supposedly reserving right to retain and later regain powers delegated to the federal government. His theory is that by the federal government accepting these states into the union, it was implied that these conditions were accepted - and furthermore, since no state can have greater rights than others, then all other states retain the same rights as well. The problem is that this logic falls apart in that although, yes, the Constitution is silent on the issue of unilateral secession, it is likewise silent on states being able to ratify with conditions. And taking his argument as true that no state can have greater rights than others, this would render any such attempted conditions of ratification as null and void.
As a practical matter, it is ludicrous to believe that a state can come and go as it pleases. There cannot be stability in allowing a state to scoop up benefits without an assurance that it will give back in return. I can't help but to think back to the kid who threatens to take his ball and go home if he doesn’t get his way. There has to be reliance among the states that all other states will hold up their end of the bargain in order for the compact to function properly. If a state interferes with the federal government’s exercise of its jurisdiction within its borders, why wouldn’t the federal government have the right to restore order with military force? DiLorenzo argues that South Carolina did offer to pay for the federal property it wanted to seize - but so what?
This also reminds me of his argument that the federal government could have bought the freedom of all the slaves. I suppose we could go around and around on all kinds of possibilities of what could have happened, but in all these scenarios, it would have taken all sides to come to the table to agree. Anyone who is familiar with antebellum history knows that just wasn't going to happen. Just like today, back then it was like pulling teeth just getting any basic appropriation bills out of Congress, and there is no chance that the southern states would have even entertained such a proposal.
I agree that the popular view of Lincoln can often be overly hagiographic. However, I have read several biographies of other figures from this era and those authors aren’t shy about heaping criticism upon Lincoln. The notion that society won't stand for ANY criticism of Lincoln I believe is hyperbolic.
August 31, 2021
This irreputable author has written the perfect narrative for white supremacists/sympathizers.
It paints an extremely flattering picture of southerners just wanting to continue their agricultural endeavors peacefully and quietly -- they didn't go to war over maintaining control over their slaves; why would anyone assume that?! Anyone with a fraction of American history knows that's complete horseshit.
Yes, there were maniacs in the Northern army (i.e., Sherman), and wars are fought because of revenue, but let's not for one second give the South any grace at all when it comes the American Civil War.
That alone makes this book shameful and a complete waste of space and time.
It paints an extremely flattering picture of southerners just wanting to continue their agricultural endeavors peacefully and quietly -- they didn't go to war over maintaining control over their slaves; why would anyone assume that?! Anyone with a fraction of American history knows that's complete horseshit.
Yes, there were maniacs in the Northern army (i.e., Sherman), and wars are fought because of revenue, but let's not for one second give the South any grace at all when it comes the American Civil War.
That alone makes this book shameful and a complete waste of space and time.
August 30, 2020
A very different perspective on Abraham Lincoln. The author quotes letters, speeches, and other documents that make Lincoln far less of a hero and far more of a tyrant than the typical school textbooks make him. This book is well researched with copious citations. It makes me realize how important it is to read original documents when studying history instead of depending on textbooks.
January 12, 2025
(edit: this isn't a really well-written review which is ironic given how i shit on the book itself for being poorly written but i word vomited this out in a fit of rage so you'll have to forgive any weird stuff)
this book is so bad. it was an option for a research project on lincoln for my us history class, and since i didn't really have any strong feelings about the 20 or so options provided, i just picked one at random. boy did i dig a deep hole for myself in doing that. i have drudged through this book for the past month, suffering through dilorenzo's unnecessary repetition of unrelated facts (i genuinely could not give less of a shit about francis scott key's grandson but he is very adamant about pushing that through). he does eventually get around to answering what "the problem" with lincoln is, though it's in an incredibly drawn-out, roundabout way and absolutely could have been summarized in probably about half the time it actually took. that being said, dilorenzo does include some important information to consider when thinking about lincoln's effect on america. THAT being said, he also includes insanely irrelevant claims and other claims that are way out of left field in their extremity. on top of that, in reading reviews on his 2004 book "the real lincoln", i have come to realize that not only does it seem he has written the same book twice, he's built himself a reputation of including indisputably wrong information. this breaks the presumed trust between the author and the consumer, and after learning this i genuinely don't know if i can believe everything he says. genuinely, the only things in this book that i am confident are true are things i had prior knowledge about. luckily, my research project allows me to react however i may about this book and what dilorenzo says, so i am ready to chew him out even further. don't read this unless you a. want to suffer, b. want a good laugh at the insane shit he says, or c. are a cranky libertarian who probably agrees with him on everything. if c applies to you then this is absolutely the book for you and i 100% recommend it. i am this book's number one hater. happy new year everyone
this book is so bad. it was an option for a research project on lincoln for my us history class, and since i didn't really have any strong feelings about the 20 or so options provided, i just picked one at random. boy did i dig a deep hole for myself in doing that. i have drudged through this book for the past month, suffering through dilorenzo's unnecessary repetition of unrelated facts (i genuinely could not give less of a shit about francis scott key's grandson but he is very adamant about pushing that through). he does eventually get around to answering what "the problem" with lincoln is, though it's in an incredibly drawn-out, roundabout way and absolutely could have been summarized in probably about half the time it actually took. that being said, dilorenzo does include some important information to consider when thinking about lincoln's effect on america. THAT being said, he also includes insanely irrelevant claims and other claims that are way out of left field in their extremity. on top of that, in reading reviews on his 2004 book "the real lincoln", i have come to realize that not only does it seem he has written the same book twice, he's built himself a reputation of including indisputably wrong information. this breaks the presumed trust between the author and the consumer, and after learning this i genuinely don't know if i can believe everything he says. genuinely, the only things in this book that i am confident are true are things i had prior knowledge about. luckily, my research project allows me to react however i may about this book and what dilorenzo says, so i am ready to chew him out even further. don't read this unless you a. want to suffer, b. want a good laugh at the insane shit he says, or c. are a cranky libertarian who probably agrees with him on everything. if c applies to you then this is absolutely the book for you and i 100% recommend it. i am this book's number one hater. happy new year everyone
November 25, 2021
I really really loved this book. It was an eye-opener. You know how when you read a history book, and the author doesn't understand the science behind the situation very well, so he says it's because of physics/economics or something? Those silly explanations don't really mean anything and demonstrate to you how the author is lost and does not understand anything. You will not find such an analysis here.
I used to love Lincoln, but I understand how much of a miserable and pathetic monster he is, who is nothing short of a mass murderer (which he literally is). The book tries to go deep into the history of the American Civil War, Lincoln's job as a railway-industry lawyer, and a protectionist. How utterly and despicably racist and disgusting he was, and how totalitarian.
I never imagined how destructive the civil war was until now. And how many countries ended slavery peaceably, but the US didn't because slavery was only the excuse presented to save a union against a state that was growing to be (and is now apparently ever more) a leviathan.
I used to love Lincoln, but I understand how much of a miserable and pathetic monster he is, who is nothing short of a mass murderer (which he literally is). The book tries to go deep into the history of the American Civil War, Lincoln's job as a railway-industry lawyer, and a protectionist. How utterly and despicably racist and disgusting he was, and how totalitarian.
I never imagined how destructive the civil war was until now. And how many countries ended slavery peaceably, but the US didn't because slavery was only the excuse presented to save a union against a state that was growing to be (and is now apparently ever more) a leviathan.
January 3, 2023
Well…. That was an eye opener.
August 25, 2020
The author of, "Lincoln Unmasked," "The Real Lincoln," and the related, "Hamilton's Curse," has added another expose of the god of the Lincoln Cult. Dishonest Abe exposed.
If you love lies and like being lied to, do NOT read this book. But if you want to see what was hidden from you in the public school curriculum, want to see the father of Marxism in America, want to learn about America's most tyrannical dictator and learn about his "slick willie" political tactics... and find out why 600,000 soldiers had to die in a useless war, why hundreds of thousands of civilians suffered and died at the hands of U.S. military thugs and why Adolf Hitler credited Lincoln, Grant and Sherman with his "total war" policy... Read this book.
I don't agree with DiLorenzo's "free trade" position nor his claim that all tariff's hurt Americans. On one occasion he attempts to lump Trump in with those who used tariff's to simply fleece the American taxpaying flock. It's strange to see such over-simplistic claims and conclusions coming from someone who has built a reputation in looking beyond the talking points and seeing things as they really are.
But other than a couple of these speed bumps, the rest of the main text is very informative while the appendices OUGHT to be read by all voting Americans. Historical documents like these are priceless and ought to be the basis for our understanding of the history of our nation.
If you love lies and like being lied to, do NOT read this book. But if you want to see what was hidden from you in the public school curriculum, want to see the father of Marxism in America, want to learn about America's most tyrannical dictator and learn about his "slick willie" political tactics... and find out why 600,000 soldiers had to die in a useless war, why hundreds of thousands of civilians suffered and died at the hands of U.S. military thugs and why Adolf Hitler credited Lincoln, Grant and Sherman with his "total war" policy... Read this book.
I don't agree with DiLorenzo's "free trade" position nor his claim that all tariff's hurt Americans. On one occasion he attempts to lump Trump in with those who used tariff's to simply fleece the American taxpaying flock. It's strange to see such over-simplistic claims and conclusions coming from someone who has built a reputation in looking beyond the talking points and seeing things as they really are.
But other than a couple of these speed bumps, the rest of the main text is very informative while the appendices OUGHT to be read by all voting Americans. Historical documents like these are priceless and ought to be the basis for our understanding of the history of our nation.
February 25, 2023
Author is not a historian and focuses in on Lincoln's short comings while exaggerating his negative traits. Does go to show however that even the most "heroic" figures of history are not perfect. This book also minimizes the role Lincoln played in the freeing of slaves, while chalking up the civil war as simply a warmonger trying to restrict states rights and force the Confederacy to stay in the Union. While elements of this may be true, it is not very well rounded nor is it an in depth analysis of Lincoln or the civil war.
September 29, 2021
Well, guess what, idiotic Lincoln-haters? You are a small minority, and The Lincoln Memorial ain't going anywhere else but where it is.
November 8, 2022
This is a poorly written propaganda book. I have the following qualms :
1. The author very insensitively talks about slaves as purely economic goods, without regard for the horrors of the disgusting institution of slavery, like lynching, rape, separation of family among others.
2. He criticizes Lincoln for initially fighting the war to preserve the union (and not to end slavery), although preserving the Union was the political way to gain public and military support for the cause.
3. The author offhandedly mentions that the attack on Fort Sumter was no big deal because no people were killed. I implore the author to attack an empty Federal building and justify it for the same reasons, hoping to escape punishment.
4. He questions Lincoln’s Christian credentials which are completely irrelevant to holding public office in the United States.
5. In what should be a laughable criticism of Lincoln, the author attacks the 16th President for being against civil rights in the northern states, while ignoring the fact that civil rights are a step ahead of abolishing slavery and became the law of the land only a century later. The author conveniently forgets that the South, far from having any semblance of civil rights, had no provision for black people to be treated with the bare minimal human rights either.
6. Many claims made in this book are not based on historical sources, few others are built on hearsay, and the rest are from media outlets with some of the least reputable journalistic integrity.
Usually, I like to donate my books to a library to gift them to friends, but this book is not worthy of anyone’s time and effort. Anyone who reads this book will regret the effort their parents put into educating them.
1. The author very insensitively talks about slaves as purely economic goods, without regard for the horrors of the disgusting institution of slavery, like lynching, rape, separation of family among others.
2. He criticizes Lincoln for initially fighting the war to preserve the union (and not to end slavery), although preserving the Union was the political way to gain public and military support for the cause.
3. The author offhandedly mentions that the attack on Fort Sumter was no big deal because no people were killed. I implore the author to attack an empty Federal building and justify it for the same reasons, hoping to escape punishment.
4. He questions Lincoln’s Christian credentials which are completely irrelevant to holding public office in the United States.
5. In what should be a laughable criticism of Lincoln, the author attacks the 16th President for being against civil rights in the northern states, while ignoring the fact that civil rights are a step ahead of abolishing slavery and became the law of the land only a century later. The author conveniently forgets that the South, far from having any semblance of civil rights, had no provision for black people to be treated with the bare minimal human rights either.
6. Many claims made in this book are not based on historical sources, few others are built on hearsay, and the rest are from media outlets with some of the least reputable journalistic integrity.
Usually, I like to donate my books to a library to gift them to friends, but this book is not worthy of anyone’s time and effort. Anyone who reads this book will regret the effort their parents put into educating them.
December 14, 2024
This well researched work shatters the myths surrounding one of the most revered figures in US history - Abraham Lincoln. Far from the noble emancipator portrayed in textbooks, this book paints a startling portrait of a calculating politician whose actions escalated and prolonged the Civil War for his own gain.
Through impeccable scholarship and analysis, the author challenges the curated version of history that has been fed to generations of students. Readers will be shocked to discover the true motivations and consequences of Lincoln's policies, which have been whitewashed and celebrated by the victors.
This is not a work of revisionist history, but a bold reclamation of the past. By confronting the uncomfortable truths about Lincoln and the Civil War, the author forces us to re-examine the foundations of modern America. Far from a 'cancel culture' attack, this book is a call for a more honest, nuanced understanding of our shared history.
For anyone seeking to move beyond the Lincoln legend and explore the complex realities of 19th-century America, this is an essential read. Prepare for a transformative read that will challenge your assumptions and reshape your perspective on American history. This is history as it should be told - unvarnished, unflinching, and unafraid to upend the status quo.
Through impeccable scholarship and analysis, the author challenges the curated version of history that has been fed to generations of students. Readers will be shocked to discover the true motivations and consequences of Lincoln's policies, which have been whitewashed and celebrated by the victors.
This is not a work of revisionist history, but a bold reclamation of the past. By confronting the uncomfortable truths about Lincoln and the Civil War, the author forces us to re-examine the foundations of modern America. Far from a 'cancel culture' attack, this book is a call for a more honest, nuanced understanding of our shared history.
For anyone seeking to move beyond the Lincoln legend and explore the complex realities of 19th-century America, this is an essential read. Prepare for a transformative read that will challenge your assumptions and reshape your perspective on American history. This is history as it should be told - unvarnished, unflinching, and unafraid to upend the status quo.
December 4, 2021
This is an absolutely brilliant historical gem damning Lincoln for being the bigoted, war monger tyrant that information surrounded that actual era shows him to be. There are a few books that do that, rather than being revisionist propaganda. It quotes several of his speeches in full, talks about his "friendship" with like-minded Karl Marx (and the innumerate letters they wrote one another), etc. Being a historian (educated rather than indoctrinated), I've read a lot of academic literature that all says the same sorts of things. Still, I learned a myriad of new things through this very well written book. It's sensational.
It's also nudged me towards another book by an African American author/African American historian entitled: "Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream." The things it said about that book make me want to get it and read it too.
It's also nudged me towards another book by an African American author/African American historian entitled: "Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream." The things it said about that book make me want to get it and read it too.
January 2, 2022
This book is a great start for anyone looking to delve into the truth of Abraham Lincoln without the idolatry found in all the thousands of other Lincoln books. Lincoln was a racist, plain and simple, and a rank politician. His own words and deeds condemn him, and if you take the blinders off, you will see it too. You will see he was a dictator during his time in office, because if he let the South go, the Union he dreamt of, with internal improvements, protective tariffs, cronyism, and the like, would've crashed. He had to destroy the South to save his political career and his ideology of corruption. You owe it to yourself to read this book if only to balance out the deification by other authors.
January 6, 2023
This book was very well done. If you are a political thinker that sees the historic evils of a centralized power, then you will see through what Lincoln was up to during the civil war. I am compelled by the information in this book and it has greatly challenged me in my view of American history.
Granted that these things are true, America obviously began its decline after the civil war. The American Civil war was America’s French Revolution. Dilorenzo makes this statement and I think it’s right. Very challenging read! Highly recommend.
Granted that these things are true, America obviously began its decline after the civil war. The American Civil war was America’s French Revolution. Dilorenzo makes this statement and I think it’s right. Very challenging read! Highly recommend.
February 21, 2025
A good example of what propaganda can do for one's reputation. Backed by copious notes, direct quotes and thoughtful, informed commentary, DiLorenzo torches the "Honest Abe" and "Great Emancipator" myths. The unnecessary, vicious invasion of its own southern member states knee-capped the Constitution's enshrinement of individual states' rights and autonomy – which was the whole point. Slavery be damned – it was a power grab that changed the "Union" forever.
February 22, 2024
I knew that Lincoln created greenbacks, but I had no idea that he was arresting judges who dared rule against him. The mobs of people murdering people who criticized Lincoln and the destruction of opposition media, wow. People seem to think that wokeism is a new thing with antifa willing to do violence to shut-down free speech. But it’s unusual that we had a time period where that didn’t happen.
March 14, 2023
1/3 of the book is reference material, speeches, letters, etc backing up DiLorenzo’s arguments. The only reason for 4 stars instead of 5 is the inability of the author to subdue his hatred for Lincoln.
November 10, 2023
First rate. A significant addition to your civil war reading list.
My first DiLorenzo book, I will be keeping my eyes out for others.
I am curious about the differences between this book and The Real Lincoln.
My first DiLorenzo book, I will be keeping my eyes out for others.
I am curious about the differences between this book and The Real Lincoln.
March 25, 2021
Brought much needed elucidation and meaning to my previous misgivings about the presumed greatest president whom is held dear to every 10th grade history teacher's heart.
July 27, 2021
I had always wondered how, Lincoln being a Republican politician, that party was so different back then. It turns out it was not.
August 15, 2021
Good objective view of one of the most vile presidents to have ever served.
September 5, 2024
Who would have thought this guy was a complete jerk? First time I am hearing of it. Well reasoned but unpopular opinion on the Great emancipator.
October 31, 2024
Good, but gives me a lot to study.
https://youtu.be/tnY_lVr5u4U?si=XIlCO...
https://youtu.be/tnY_lVr5u4U?si=XIlCO...
December 27, 2025
Extremely similar to his previous book.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews