[Ditto]

DiLorenzo has put quite a bit of research into his book, and certainly has quite a bit more PRIMARY EVIDENCE (i.e., newspaper articles from BOTH the North and the South, from the TIME PERIOD) in his book than anything Al Franken and company would provide. Ever.

Dilorenzo is a Libertarian zealot who found a profitable little niche with Crown Rights book club. No distortion is too low for him or his gullible fans. If he floats your boat, you are obviously not interested in understanding US history.

Try this one. Go see the latest George Clooney movie and give us the definitive report on the history of the McCarthy hearings. That would be the same as relying on Dilorenzo for Lincoln's history. But Clooney will make a lot of money, and many will believe what they see on film is what really happened.

[detsaoT]

Dilorenzo is a Libertarian zealot who found a profitable little niche with Crown Rights book club. No distortion is too low for him or his gullible fans. If he floats your boat, you are obviously not interested in understanding US history. Try this one. Go see the latest George Clooney movie and give us the definitive report on the history of the McCarthy hearings. That would be the same as relying on Dilorenzo for Lincoln's history. But Clooney will make a lot of money, and many will believe what they see on film is what really happened.

I'm sure that anyone with half a brain who lines up the facts presented by Clooney et. al. will be able to figure out pretty quickly that the movie is complete garbage; and yes, those who are intent on drinking kool-aid will inevitably accept it at face value.

But back to DiLorenzo, and any other book which references primary evidence for purposes other than entertainment, could you at least illustrate for me some of your arguments against the evidence he's collected, or at the least, present historic arguments as to why it's quote-unquote "full of it?"

I mean, to what would you respond to:

• Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeus corpus for all who dared to print disagreements with his policy?

• The militarization of Maryland, and the subsequent arrest of the lawfully-elected legislature of the same?

• The importation of German mercenaries with the intent to use them to terrorize regions of the South?

• The seizure of arms purchased with SOUTHERN money, explicitly for the purpose of attacking said SOUTHERN states?

I mean, even the most ardent defender of the Union must have valid reasons why these gross abuses of power were committed, right? To me, they sound much like the same tactics employed by the British during our Revolutionary war, which we were in the RIGHT to fight, no?

(No, I'm not defending slavery. Yes, the South was wrong to continue it. No, you can't argue the past in terms of the present without mangling things completely.)

Hope this makes sense. I eagerly await your reply.

Regards,
~dT~