Union and anti-slavery speeches delivered during the rebellion Book

Eleven chapters of, how shall I put this mildly, bovine waste.

This book was urged upon my by one who found it compelling. Finally, after a century and a half of myth-based pseudo-history propping up the image of "King Lincoln", he told me, comes Thomas J. DiLorenzo, an economist with a book exposing the "truth" about not-so-honest Abe.

I'll admit to skepticism. And I'll even admit that I had no real desire to read The Real Lincoln. Whenever I'm faced with a conflict between mainstream and fringe, the burden of proof is on fringe to convince me that the mainstream is incorrect. It can be done. But when common sense and logic side with the mainstream, it is difficult - as I think that it should be - to convince me that the mainstream is wrong. I felt it was highly unlikely that DiLorenzo could shift my viewpoint.

Time passed but the comments kept coming. You might be surprised how often our sixteenth president can make it into everyday conversation. The comments traced the roots of America's generally bad state of nearly everything to Abraham Lincoln. And the source backing the comments was Thomas DiLorenzo.

Then fate intervened. I saw an advertisement alongside an article that I was reading on a news site - I don't recall ever having paid attention to one before. The advertisement was for a book by Dennis W. Brandt called Shattering the Truth: The Slandering of Abraham Lincoln. I went to Amazon and pulled up a copy of Brandt's book and previewed the Preface. Lo and behold Brandt was talking about DiLorenzo. 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 ordered it immediately.

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. Even without Brandt's help, I found DiLorenzo unconvincing.

Throughout The Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo discounts any historian who disagrees with him and lauds those who agree. He takes some bits and pieces from original sources and cuts and pastes them out of context. He alternately holds Lincoln to modern racial sensibilities and downplays the evils of slavery as irrelevant to the cause - or even a cause - of the Civil War. And, most glaringly, he writes from an absolutist standpoint. There is no room for nuance and no shades of gray. And there is certainly no room for historical context.

DiLorenzo's logic is often faulty but, at times, his points sound convincing. Many such points, however, rely on assumptions without footnotes or any other proof. But, as Brandt points out, even if the assumptions were footnoted, DiLorenzo's use of sources isn't always (or even often) reliable.

DiLorenzo uses The Real Lincoln as part of his broader effort to trash the image of Lincoln for refusing to allow the Confederacy to secede, for doing so not to save the Union but to consolidate absolute power and riches in the hands of a few and oppress the God-given liberties of all Americans. In a vacuum and unchecked, I fear, DiLorenzo's efforts could succeed. Thankfully, we don't live in a vacuum.

Check DiLorenzo's sources, and check his sources' sources. Or, if you don't have time, as I didn't, feel free to consult Shattering the Truth. Dennis Brandt has done yeoman's work for us all.

If you're interested in a different opinion on Abraham Lincoln, The Real Lincoln is right for you. But if you want that different view to be honest, accurate, or based in reality - as I think something with the word "real" in its title should be, look elsewhere - almost anywhere elsewhere would be better.