The author’s central theme is that the North was bent on establishing a centralized, totalitarian government over the South’s objections. To achieve this end, Lincoln relied on recent German emigres whom the author portrays as being uniformly Marxist and/or totalitarian in philosophy.

Throughout the introduction, the author makes frequent comparison’s with the Kaiserreich under Bismarck and 20th Century Germany. For instance, the author claims that the North’s interest in slavery was nothing more than hypocritical pretext, as the North was, in the author’s words, engaged in a program of genocide against the Indians akin to the Holocaust. In this way, the author attempts to connect Lincoln with the Nazi’s through the German emigres by innuendo. Nevermind Carl Schurz’s stand on Indian affairs, and placement of blame on white speculators and frontiersmen who constantly enflamed relations.

While I am willing to entertain reasonable arguments that the Civil War brought about a centralized government that was contrary to the intent of Founding Fathers like Jefferson, as well as rational debates whether or not such centralization was, as a matter of political philosophy, good for the country, this is clearly not the book to find either of these.

Chris Van Blargan

I’m interested in learning which worthwhile books you’ve read which had “stupid” covers. There’s more at work here, by the way – a publisher which has a track record of publishing neo-Confederate comic books in the guise of historical treatises and a title which suggests a ridiculous piece of ne-Confederate propaganda. Mein Kampf is a bad analogy. It has a great deal of historical value because the book itself played a significant role in history and is also a window into the mind of a madman who plunged the world into a global catastrophe and caused a civilized nation to engage in possibly the most horrific example of genocide ever.

That is similar to an analogy I like to use:

I don’t have to eat a piece of s##t to know it doesn’t taste like a candy bar.

With all respect, there is no “argument”.

> I might take the argument a little more serious.

There can’t be any argument around this book because nobody involved has read it.

There is no spoon, Chris.

Dan

Although I am highly skeptical, I can’t fault you for wanting to see if the content and cover match before passing judgment, but my guess is that, to use Gary’s analogy, you are going to need a new pair of shoes.

On a side note, I might take the argument a little more serious if Lincoln was dealing with Prussian military professionals of von Moltke’s caliber rather than failed revolutionaries such as Siegel and Blenker. After all, most of the 48ers with military experience were here because they were not good enough at their trade to avoid becoming refugees — a fact Lincoln did not fully realize until early 1864.

Chris Van Blargan

Excellent points.
You’ve essentially covered my concerns.

I’ve read lots of books that had stupid covers but excellent content, and vice versa.

My point is simple: As scholars and students we cannot make a legitimate case, pro or con, about a book without having read it.

If you would like to argue this particular point, please proceed.

Best Regards,
Dan

It really comes down to two questions: Are you worried that the book cover and synopsis do not accurately reflect the author’s premise, which might have some scholarly merit, or do you believe the cover and synopsis accurately reflect the author’s premise, but think the the author may have a convincing argument that Carl Schurz was a proto-Nazi who convinced Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus? I have conceded the possibility, however unlikely, that the cover and synopsis may not accurately reflect the contents. But in that case, you would have to agree the author and/or publisher deserve criticism for the misunderstanding. On the other hand, if your concern stems from the fact we have not given the perceived argument a chance, I have to agree with Eric, Mark and Dave.

Chris Van Blargan

>Your analogy falls flat.

How? I thought it quite illustrative.

If a book is dismissed or slammed by critics who have not read it, or studied it, their dismissal is based upon incomplete information, heresay, and opinion – essentially a lack of knowledge on the subject at hand, the book being criticised. If a movie critic slammed a movie in print and it was discovered that the critic never saw the movie, the critic would be accused of fraud and would be fired, correctly so, too. Same should go for literary criticism.

All of this discussion is entirely premature. If a critic has an opinion, the opinion must be validated by having read the book. Opinion based upon zero knowledge, and assumptions doesn’t seem to me to have much value.

There can’t be any intellectual debate on this book because nobody has read it. The entire discussion is premature.

This is not scholarship or intellectual discourse. This is an embrace of anti-knowledge and the supremacy of opinion over fact which I reject.

Best Regards,
Daniel

Your analogy falls flat. The author and/or publisher chose the title and cover to draw readers, and their clear intent was to link Lincoln and the Nazis through German-Americans. Is it possible the cover and synopsis on Amazon do not reflect the actual content of the book? Sure, and I for one hope this is the case. I would welcome a scholarly study of German-American support for the Union which examines the differences between old and new immigrants, the differences between Catholic, Protestant and secular, political refugees vs. economic immigrants, and urban vs. agrarian emigrants; whether the place of origin (Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, Alsace, etc.) determined political outlook; the impact of German pacifist sects on draft policy; etc. But based on the cover and synopsis, which the author and/or publisher chose to attract an audience, I don’t think we can expect anything like this, but rather, a stereotypical portrayal designed to support a controversial, sensationalist premise.

Chris Van Blargan