Lincoln Unmasked

In his reappraisal of the famed president, DiLorenzo is highly critical of Lincoln. Within the book he argues that states within the union had the right at the time of the American Civil War to secede and that the more centralized government that emerged after the war was incompatible with democracy. DiLorenzo also claims that most scholars of the Civil War are biased in their approach to the history because, as DiLorenzo reminds the reader, "in war the victors get to write the history". Dilorenzo also argues that Lincoln was opposed to racial equality, and that many abolitionists, including Lysander Spooner, bitterly hated him.[2]

Several reviewers of the book have concluded that while there is room for discrepancy, the overall interpretation of President Lincoln by other historians has sided towards truth. One such critic is Justin Ewers, a senior editor at U.S. News & World Report, who reviewing the book for The Washington Post noted: "Of course, Lincoln's presidency had its dark side. Most infamously, the Great Emancipator suspended habeas corpus in 1861–62, allowing the indefinite detention of citizens without trial. Still, DiLorenzo's work is more of a diatribe against a mostly unnamed group of Lincoln scholars than a real historical analysis." [3]

Other reviewers, like Publishers Weekly, while calling the book a "laughable screed," suggest that DiLorenzo's main target are "scholars who dominate American universities (most notably Eric Foner)".[4]