DiLorenzo, an economist with a book exposing the "truth" about not-so-honest Abe. I'll admit to skepticism. Brandt called Shattering the Truth: The Slandering of Abraham Lincoln. And his book was a direct reply to DiLorenzo's works, including The Real Lincoln, and seemed to be a document-based, irrefutable, refutation. Brandt, I suspected, had taken the time to do the work necessary to prove the truth of the mainstream in opposition to the fringe. I knew that I would read The Real Lincoln and Shattering the Truth together but, hoping to keep as open a mind as possible under the circumstances, I decided to read DiLorenzo first and Brandt second, instead of reading them side by side. DiLorenzo's logic is often faulty but, at times, his points sound convincing. But, as Brandt points out, even if the assumptions were footnoted, DiLorenzo's use of sources isn't always (or even often) reliable.
History as ignorant rant. He claims universal loathing of the Emancipation Proclamation by citing editorials from Democratic newspapers.
Not until after Gettysburg with the threat of Great Britain and France joining in the confederate cause did Lincoln produce his ingenious (in some sense) emancipation proclamation in hopes of generating a slave rebellion in the South. What they didn't teach us in schools was the North as Tocqueville mentioned was likely more racist than the south, and upon learning that the cause of the Civil War was not about preserving the Union but about freeing the slaves they rioted in Washington. after reading the book which presents the evidence, you will have no doubt Lincoln was a scoundrel.
This book was a real eye-opener.
The states had a right to secede from the union. Lincoln entered the war without congressional approval, calling it a "rebellion". Lincoln then took control of the newspapers, imprisoning without trial on the order of 13,000 people.
The evangelists for the Lost Cause have been peddling this propaganda since the end of the Civil War. All the classic chestnuts are here -- states' rights, downplaying of slavery, the North "provoking" the South into war, etc. The book only has value if you're a collector of Civil War memorabilia or Lost Cause pseudoscholarship. More on the Lost Cause: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/ng... Lincoln's views on race and slavery in context: http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/feature...
Some brief internet searching revealed that the book is quite controversial and has been charged with gross distortion of history. DiLorenzo's stated goal is to get past the "myths" of Lincoln that he believes is all too common and reveal the truth about the man.
So i'll ask: should we analyze the constitutionality of the Civil War by looking at the Southern States as a foreign power or as states within the US that were attempting to nullify the Federal law and thus, the Supremacy Clause? ______________________________________ I was really starting to buy the author's alternative to war until P.277: "If this had happened state-imposed, voluntary abolition race relations in the South would not have been so irreparably poisoned as they were during Reconstruction. If the Republican Party had not used the ex-slaves as political pawns in the South and turned them against the whites, acts of violence against the ex-slaves and the institution of Jim Crow laws might never have happened." This is not just a bending of Reconstruction history, but proof that the author has no understanding of the period. Before, during, and after the Civil War, Southern whites were fearful of black freedom and sought ways to use the power of their state governments to stop it from coming to pass.
As I understand it from many others, I was fortunate to have a history teacher in high school who correctly emphasized that the Civil War was NOT about slavery. My high school days were back in 1980 just as President Reagan was coming into office and I was confused ever since by the fact that; 1) He rightly emphasized states rights 2) Spoke glowingly, as have all modern presidents, of Lincoln who at the very least, didn't believe the states had the right to secede. I've been confused by President Obama's glowing praise of Lincoln beyond the obvious slavery angle. This issue of Lincoln restricting the states has been allowed to be so tied into the issue of slavery that to even voice this confusion aloud would get you shouted down.