Comment: I have not read the book, but...

(See in situ)


I have not read the book, but...

...the situation described by the author in the excerpt you provided is generally consistent with facts relayed by Thomas DiLorenzo in his two Lincoln books, The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked.

Both excellent reads....showing the truth about Lincoln from his own words and documents...a truth that is quite at odds with established Lincoln lore.

And I note that there's a recent Lincoln push across the various propaganda engines today. Between O'Reilly, Beck, and a couple of recent movies (what else did I miss?), oh all the media comparisons between Obama and Lincoln, there seems to be something going on. Likely, it is one or both of the following:

1. These are in response to DiLorenzo, hoping that he has not done too much damage to the state-sponsored and idyllic view of Lincoln.
2. They are preparing the nation for Lincoln-like acts from Obama, in hopes that with the fable-version of Lincoln as his precedent, Obama can get away with some high level tyranny, such as invading and firing on a seceded state or arresting entire state legislatures to prevent them from passing laws he doesn't like.

Edited to add: Upon further reflection, this sentence in the excerpt bothers me: "with the goal of provoking secession." As I understand it so far, the South seceded because they were tired of being forced (by high tarriffs) to buy expensive products from the northern companies when they could otherwise get them cheaper overseas. So when they left, they were attacked in order to keep the northern companies from losing a huge chunk of their markets. I am not aware of any bankers trying to FORCE secession. I'd be interested to know what possible motives may have existed for that purpose.

Jack