Original sentence: According to DiLorenzo, Masugi is selective in his presentation about Lincoln and "relies entirely on a few of Lincoln’s prettier speeches, ignoring his less attractive ones as well as his actual behavior.According to Masugi's review, The Real Lincoln fails to take into account the necessities imposed upon Lincoln by the South's secession.Among the criticisms of The Real Lincoln was a review by Claremont Institute scholar Ken Masugi in the conservative National Review.Bob Moser of the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center calls DiLorenzo's book a "revisionist view" that blames Lincoln "for everything far right-wingers believe is amiss in the America of 2003: big centralized government, welfare giveaways, rampant capitalist greed, shrinking civil liberties and reckless imperialism.DiLorenzo has responded to several of his critics at the Claremont Institute.Masugi accuses DiLorenzo of failing to recognize that "a disunited America might have become prey for the designs of European imperial powers, which would have put an end to the experiment in self-government
Edited sentence: A Wall Street Journal poll taken in 2005, designed to include opinions from both liberal and conservative historians, ranked Lincoln the second-greatest President in American history - unchanged from previous polls.Claremont Institute scholar Ken Masugi, writing for the conservative National Review, criticizes DiLorenzo's book for failing to take into account the necessities imposed upon him by the South's secession and for undermining the idea of America as one nation.Few historians specifically responded to The Real Lincoln, and those that did were largely critical.The Real Lincoln appears to have had little impact on Lincoln's historical ranking among U.The liberal Southern Poverty Law Center has argued that DiLorenzo's criticism of Lincoln is ahistorical and is part of a larger neo-Confederate revival in modern-day America