I am wondering because apparently there seems to be a subsection of Americans who subscribe to the views of one Thomas DiLorenzo, an economist, who published a book in 2002 called "the Real Lincoln", where president Lincoln is portrayed as being nothing more than a hypocritical, lying warmonger, a racist, bigot and immoral war criminal.
That the main reason for the Civil War of 1861 was Lincoln's aggression towards the South and his insistence on pushing for high tariffs and strengthening the federal state - essentially to crush the independence of the states of the Union.
To quote Wikipedia's summary of DiLorenzo's book:
In discussing Lincoln's legacy, DiLorenzo describes civil liberties abuses such as the suspension of habeas corpus, violations of the First Amendment, war crimes committed by generals in the American Civil War, and the expansion of government power. DiLorenzo argues that Lincoln's views on race exhibited forms of bigotry that are commonly overlooked today. DiLorenzo also argues that Lincoln instigated the American Civil War not over slavery but rather to centralize power and to enforce the strongly protectionist Morrill Tariff; similarly, he criticizes Lincoln for his strong support of Henry Clay's American System.
So, my question to Americans here is: do you subscribe to this or do you think this person is just posting some fringe view? Do you think it is proper to put modern standards of political correctness to measure the character of Lincoln? Is it possible to take the actions and words of Lincoln out of context with the society he lived in and the actions and agenda of the Southern states?