So I grabbed my Dad's copy and tore through it in about a day. I highly recommend it as it does a great job of explaining antebellum politics as well as debunking the aura of sainthood around Lincoln.
Of course it's been trashed by people that disagree and have spent their entire career dedicated to one man in history.
There are a lot of interesting parts of this book and most important is the bibliography. As a libertarian I in no way support slavery, but I also oppose the coercion of the state to solve problems.
The short version: Lincoln was nothing but a modern politician, selling public policy for political support of his backers. DiLorenzo goes into the fight over central banking and the real reason for the Civil War: Tariffs.
The show so far, DOGE edition
-
Round one is over, and so far no progress and indeed steps backwards:
President-elect Donald Trump’s last-minute demands for a congressional
funding pack...
4 hours ago
Lincoln refusing to let the South secede peacefully and lawfully was an act of tyranny. Lincoln didn't really give a fig about slaves.
The only time Lincoln met with black leaders was to discuss "relocation" (read: deportation)of all members of their race to either africa or central america.
The much vaunted Emancipation Proclamation "freed" only the slaves located in territories still being occupied and controlled by Confederate troops. The document might as well have freed all the slaves in Arabia and China since Lincoln was in such a generous mood.
Lincoln began the serious trampling of the Constitution which seems to have set the precedent for most legislators who have followed.
[W-III]
Beware, while there is much to be said for this book the author also made some huge blunders and wasn't concerned with accuracy as much as making a point. Reputable libertarian scholars on the era have said the book is seriously flawed.