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

DiLorenzo explains how the republic founded in 1787 died at the hands of Lincoln, uncovers the Lincoln myth and shows how it is used to justify big government, imperialism, and erosion of freedom in America today. If everyone in America read this book, we could take the country back from the politicians and bureaucrats, reclaim our birthright, and enjoy a rebirth of freedom and prosperity. DiLorenzo includes an extensive bibliography for further reading. Highly recommended for serious students of history.

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." - George Orwell, 1984. Imagine an alternate world where the American patriots lost their war for independence against the British Empire. How would that loss have influenced American culture? What would American school children be taught about those patriots today, in an America that was still part of Great Britain? Imagine another alternate world in which Nazi Germany defeated the Allies in World War II. How would the official view of the war have differed in a Nazi-dominated Europe, as opposed to the free Europe of our world? Would Belgian children in such an alternate world be taught that Hitler was a villain, or one of the great and good leaders of history? All too often we assume that history is a true and faithful account of events as they actually took place and people as they actually were. We tend to forget that people who lived in the past (and recorded the events of those days), were ordinary human beings who were as vulnerable to the temptation to color events according to their own beliefs, agendas and prejudices as are people living today. For this reason, it behooves us to constantly re-investigate and re-evaluate the past in order to be certain that what we think of as the truth is, in fact, the truth. Much of how we view ourselves in the present, and how we view our path into the future, is based upon how we view the past. If that view is inaccurate, if it is tainted by the prejudices of those whose word we blindly accepted, then we ourselves are helping to perpetuate old injustices -- to say nothing of the fact that we are deluding ourselves. The obligation to constantly re-evaluate the past is especially important where wars and other clashes of of culture, religion and politics are concerned, because they are inherently based in ideology, and thus are especially vulnerable to manipulation. You may have heard the saying, "To the victor belongs the spoil." Well, one of the spoils of any conflict is the history and dominant view of that conflict. The side that prevails always colors itself as good and noble, while simultaneously coloring its opposition as (at best) misguided or (at worst) evil; and it does its best to pass its views down to posterity so that its perspective will remain dominant. This is a pattern that is demonstrated time and again throughout history; and yet, quick as we are to spot it in the histories of other lands, we Americans are very reluctant to acknowledge it here. We are too idealistic in our view of ourselves, too slow to believe that any kind of prejudice has colored our history. I think I can establish otherwise rather quickly. Let me ask you this: was Ronald Reagan a good president, or a bad one? How about George Bush? Bill Clinton? How you answer this question will depend on your own personal political viewpoints, but I believe I can say with some certainty that you hope your viewpoints on these men wil

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 decared 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 declare "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.