Lincolniana

Book Review: Lincoln: A President for the Ages

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 23:07:00 +0000

Lincoln: A President for the Ages, edited by Karl Weber (Public Affairs, 2012), paperback, 288 pages

In commenting upon Steven Spielberg's great film, Lincoln, many have noted its shrewd juxtaposition of Lincoln's approach to politics compared to the gridlock that is the hallmark of today's federal government. By focusing on the Congressional passage of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery, the movie portrays the 16th president pursuing a just cause -- in this case, the end of slavery -- through the imperfect and morally ambiguous tools of politics. Conventional wisdom compares this to the current pattern of Washington DC, where any attempt to do something significant invariably devolves into petty finger-pointing and to dueling talking points in the press.

A companion to the film, Lincoln: A President for the Ages, produced by Participant Media and featuring a picture of actor Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln on the cover, has found an intriguing way to match this aspect of Spielberg's movie. After introductory essays more closely tied to the film, its characters, and its themes, several Lincoln scholars are asked to consider how Lincoln might have faced subsequent challenges in American history.

Frequently, counter-factual history involves flights of fancy that veer towards the ridiculous. Here, though, significant historians who have experience writing about Lincoln and his era offer speculations rooted in the 19th Century context of Lincoln's decisions and actions. Three scholars consider Lincoln and the World War II era: Daniel Farber on executive power, James Takkach on the Hiroshima bomb, and Allen Guelzo on the end of the war. Jean Baker explores Lincoln and women's suffrage, while Frank Williams imagines how Lincoln might approach the war on terror. Two others consider Lincoln as public speaker and writer in today's media climate: Douglas Wilson on how Lincoln might shape public opinion with television and the Internet and Richard Carwardine on the specific issue of religious rhetoric. And the ubiquitous Harold Holzer concludes the book with a look at Lincoln and the culture of celebrity.

By and large, each of these essays is strong and most take a similar approach. After introducing their chosen anachronistic issue, the historians plumb the Lincoln record, describing how Lincoln approached similar issues in his own time, such as the development of military technology or Lincoln's calculated shaping of his public image. This analysis is followed by consideration of how Lincoln might have reacted to those later issues. Surprisingly, the most gingerly argument is made by Baker, who concludes that Lincoln could barely imagine women having the right to vote -- an issue one might reasonably assume Lincoln must actually have considered at some point in his life, as opposed to dropping an atomic bomb or dealing with television.

The opening chapters cover more expected ground in a movie companion-book. The book's editor, Karl Weber, contributes an essay, "The Faces of Lincoln," which chronicles the physical portrayal of Lincoln in photographs during his lifetime and in other art forms, including movies, in the generations thereafter. The actress Gloria Reuben, who portrays Mary Lincoln's confidant Elizabeth Keckley in Spielberg's movie, writes of her research and the process, and the deep emotion, of bringing the former slave turned businessswoman to the screen. And, as the abolition of slavery is the central drama of the movie, it is appropriate that Henry Lewis Gates contributs an essay evaluating Lincoln and his approach to slavery and race relations; Gates has spent recent years considering this issue and his scholarship, along with his judicious approach, shine in the book's most sophisticated contribution.

Overall, the essays are interesting and informative. The one exception is an interview with Andrew Ferguson, author of the highly enjoyable, Land of Lincoln, which considers the pervasive Lincoln in modern American culture. Partially, this is due to the form: next to the other carefully crafted essays, the question and response format seems haphazard; mostly, though, it is due to Ferguson not offering much of interest in his answers. Still, this is hardly reason to ignore the otherwise strong collection assembled here.

Book Review: My Thoughts Be Bloody

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 03:35:00 +0000

My Thoughts Be Bloody: The Bitter Rivalry That Led to the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln by Nora Titone (Free Press, 2011) paperback, 484 pages

John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of Abraham Lincoln, is widely known to have been an actor. In countless books, Booth's career has informed the retelling of the assassination and the surrounding conspiracy. As an actor, Booth had a knowledge of the theater, which allowed him to plan his access to Lincoln, the timing of his act, and his escape. More than this, though, there was a theatrical spectacle in the act, from the ambitious nature of the conspiracy to decapitate the government to Booth dramatically leaping from the president's box to the stage and uttering an exit line as he crossed the stage.

Despite his career as an actor and his relationship to the most famous acting family in 19th Century America, this aspect of Booth's life has been less explored by historians of Lincoln's assassination. Nora Titone's recent joint biography of Edwin Booth and John Wilkes Booth, My Thoughts Be Bloody: The Bitter Rivalry That Led to the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, is an important corrective. Chronicling the life of the acting family sired (out of wedlock) by Junius Booth, it begins with the extramarital relationship that forced the senior actor to flee his native England for the United States and then documents the family's up and down fortunes until 1865, when John Wilkes would ignominiously establish the family name in history.

The well-researched and beautifully written book is rather uninterested in the mechanics of the conspiracy and assassination. Instead, and most helpfully, it offers a vivid presentation of two significant contexts for John Wilkes Booth's life and character: the theater profession and his family dynamics.

Through the Booths, Titone explores the travails of being an actor in early 19th Century America. As a whole, actors and theater workers had a poor reputation as lower class people with very questionable morals. Further, it was a risky business financially. For backstage workers and company actors, the pay was measly, and even for established actors, earnings were directly tied to ticket sales. To earn enough to support a family generally required extensive touring and mounting multiple different productions in each city, which led Junius Booth and then his sons to be away from home for extended periods of time.

As a young teenager, Edwin Booth began accompanying his father on tour, mostly to ensure that the famous actor was not drinking too much or gambling and losing his earnings. Thus began Edwin's apprenticeship, watching his father perform famous roles again and again, and then taking ever more important parts in these performances. After the untimely death of Junius Booth, Edwin became the main breadwinner in the family as an actor, eventually establishing himself in New York City.

While Edwin Booth seemed to have received or learned his father's substantial theatrical gifts, it was the impulsive younger brother John Wilkes Booth who inherited his father's smoldering good looks. Trading on his close resemblance to his father and on the Booth family name, John Wilkes worked hard to break into acting, with initially frustrating results. Even as he depended on his brother Edwin's financial support, he chafed under his brother's refusals to help advance his career, which apparently stemmed from a combination of sibling rivalry, a fear of professional competition, and a recognition that John Wilkes was not very talented as an actor.

After the early years where Junius struggled to establish himself in the American theater, the narrative alternatively focuses on Edwin Booth and John Wilkes Booth. Seemingly required to grow up more quickly, Edwin always seems the more complete figure, while an increasingly frustrated John Wilkes moved around the edges of Edwin's orbit. While this likely is a reasonable assessment of the relationship between the two brothers and their very different professional experiences as actors, it also betrays that Titone's interest here lies mostly with Edwin, certainly an intriguing and attractive biographical figure in his own right. This leads to a fascinating dismissive tone toward John Wilkes Booth from both older brother Edwin and historian Titone.

As a result, not all of the psychological motivations of the assassin are fully explored here. John Wilkes Booth's political sensibilities seem to form haltingly towards supporting the Confederacy, partially in rebellion to Edwin's support of the Union, but his interaction with the Confederate Secret Service is barely mentioned. Neither is there much attention to the other conspirators, though I must confess that Titone's assessment of Booth Achieves a breakthrough -- here the assassin seems to have a personality compatible with the almost comical misfits assembled for the plot (with the exception of John Surratt, who has always seemed the smartest of the bunch to me).

Instead, what emerges is the story of the petulant, overgrown teenager who wants to prove he is his own man, whether in pursuing acting in a rather haphazard way or in aggressively -- and imprudently -- voicing his political views. Driven to desperate lengths to make his name, this man eventually assassinates Abraham Lincoln. This portrait of immaturity and petulance largely matches the personality quirks that John Wilkes Booth displayed during the 12 days after the assassination, as he tried to escape. It does not, though, offer sufficient insight into Booth's association with the Confederate Secret Service, or more importantly, their willingness to associate with him and trust him as an operative -- and there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest this is an important part of the story, as Edward Steers and others have argued.

Still, there is much here to recommend. Despite the depth of research, the book is not dry or cumbersome. Instead, it offers a compelling narrative more similar to a novel. If it leaves questions about Booth's motives for assassinating Lincoln, it expertly demystifies key parts of his personality and life. Instead of an actor playing a part (badly), here is a more nuanced and fleshed-out portrait of the man who would be Brutus.

Glowing Book Review in New York Times

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:53:00 +0000

In this weekend's book section, the Grey Lady offers a glowing book review of a new volume considering Abraham Lincoln as a moral philosopher. The book, Lincoln's Tragic Pragmatism: Lincoln, Douglas, and Moral Conflict was published by Harvard's Belknap Press in December. Written by John Burt, a professor of English at Brandeis University (who appears to have rather broad academic interests), the 800+ page book revisits 1858 debates between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, evidently filtered through the moral philosophy lens of more recent thinkers like John Rawls.

The review by Steven Smith, a political science professor at Yale, positively compares Burt's tome to the classic 1959 study of the debates by Harry Jaffa, Crisis of the House Divided. He then goes on to show how each book draws upon different philosophers in considering the arguments of Lincoln and Douglas.

While this book may not be for everyone, those who are seriously interested in Lincoln's political arguments and intellectual legacy would seem to be a natural audience for this book. And the strong review suggests that it will be well worthwhile.

Oscar, Oscar...

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 02:48:00 +0000

This morning, the Oscar nominations were announced. As has been the case throughout the awards season so far, Steven Spielberg's movie Lincoln has received the most nominations and hype among this year's films. As ABC News has it, "Lincoln Leads the Way...."

I have not yet seen all of the nominated movies, so I cannot hazard a completely informed prediction. But the fact that the movie has been so well received -- if you had told me, before it opened, that the film would earn more that $100 million in less than a month, I would not have laughed at you -- suggests that it has surpassed expectations by a lot. This is more influential during awards season, especially in competitive years, and bodes well for some very good nights ahead for the film.

There is also the possibility, explored in some of the media coverage, of an unexpected timeliness to Lincoln. While every generation seems to appropriate Lincoln into their own time, the story of a president dealing with a big issue with a contentious Congress seems a morality lesson given modern frustrations with the federal government. This has been noticed even beyond our shores, as in an article this week in the British newspaper, The Telegraph, which considers "The Lure of Lincoln."

How Accurate is Spielberg's "Lincoln"?

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:13:00 +0000

As I posted in my review of the new movie, I found the film to be amazingly accurate by Hollywood standards. So I was intrigued to see comments on the film by two noted Lincoln authors, Matthew Pinsker and Allen Guelzo.

Guelzo's comments highlight some of the many accurate pieces of the film, including the spirit of Lincoln himself. He is troubled by the "talkiness" of the movie. Pinsker appreciates the movie, but is troubled by some of its inaccuracies and its simplification of history.

Both are generally correct in their assessments as historians, but I feel like they don't quite understand the possibilities and limitations of film. Contrary to Pinsker, I am impressed by the sophistication of the storyline, which actually produces a fairly complete, if not fully nuanced, picture of the political realities faced by Lincoln. In fact, I think this attempt at showing a more sophisticated picture, including the burden of the office beyond simply trying to pass the 13th Amendment, is why the film clocks in at well over 2 hours long.

Certainly there are inaccuracies in the movie, beyond conveniences like having Lincoln explicitly spell out to the Cabinet his underlying rationale for using the 13th Amendment to solve problems caused by executive assumption of war powers. The Peterson House scene has significant problems in my mind -- the room is too big, Lincoln is in the bed wrong, Lincoln is dressed wrong -- and there is evidence that Lincoln handled military death cases in an established routine different from the late night reading depicted in the movie.

But the film is hugely successful at exploring the nature of these people and the extraordinary time in which they lived. While Pinsker is right to point out the confrontation between Lincoln and son Robert, I would argue that the scene is an accurate portrayal of certain key historical attributes -- the uneasy relationship between father and son, Lincoln's occasional flashes of temper (while Lincoln was notoriously lax in disciplining the children, there were exceptions, such as mistreatment of animals, that kindled his anger), Lincoln's defensiveness of Mary, to name a few.

Movie Review: "Lincoln" (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 06:07:00 +0000

After more than a decade of gestation, Steven Spielberg's bio-pic of Abraham Lincoln, based (as the credits say, "in part") on Doris Kearns Goodwin's best-selling book Team of Rivals, offers a sympathetic and humanizing portrait of the 16th President. The 2 1/2 hour film, which takes place entirely during the final four months of Lincoln's life, focuses on the contentious debate in the House of Representatives over the proposed 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, including how it might affect efforts to encourage the Confederates to surrender.

Rather directly, the movie seeks to explore the man behind the monuments and myths. Much like the famous Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC, where Daniel Chester French's massive marble Lincoln sits between full-text inscriptions of the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural Address, Spielberg's movie opens with the war-time president talking with two African-American Union soldiers, who begin reciting the Gettysburg Address, and concludes with the last third of the Second Inaugural.

With these speeches and snippets of surrounding dialogue, screenwriter Tony Kushner bookends the film with the common schoolhouse portrait of Lincoln. Between the famous words and their magnanimity, though, Kushner, the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright whose previous film experience was scripting Spielberg's 2005 movie "Munich," breathes life into the mythic figure. Through personal interactions with his family, encounters with common soldiers and citizens, and meetings with other government leaders and generals, Lincoln here is funny, passionate, beaten down, wise, cunning, and occasionally misunderstood and unapproachable.

Central to this is two-time Academy Award-winner Daniel Day-Lewis, who almost certainly will be nominated again for his performance. In addition to the brilliant make-up artistry that makes Day-Lewis look uncannily like the often-photographed Lincoln throughout, the famously intense method actor inhabits the role fully, with wit, determination, quiet intelligence, weariness, and a surprising steadiness that manifests itself, intriguingly, in the ease of a man completely comfortable with himself in every situation he faces, whether political, military, or personal.

Much will likely be made of the high voice Day-Lewis employs, especially by those who have heard actors portray Lincoln with rich baritone voices on television and in previous movies -- or even at Disney's Hall of Presidents. However, Day-Lewis has relied on the surviving testimony about Lincoln's voice, which says that Lincoln had a high voice, sometimes almost squeaky, and spoke with a Western twang that always turned words like "scared" into "skeered." (Personally, I think that the voice Day-Lewis uses is a bit more polished than I imagine from contemporary descriptions of Lincoln, but it is clear that the actor has skillfully crafted his performance from these descriptions.)

A key insight into Lincoln's character in this film, and the point at which the movie "Lincoln" is closest to the spirit of Team of Rivals, is that much is revealed through Lincoln's interactions with other equally strong people. One of the many strengths of Kushner's fine screenplay is the character development of those around Lincoln, especially his wife Mary, son Robert, Secretary of State William Seward, and influential Republican patriarch Preston Blair, but also of other identifiable historic figures with less screen time.

Spielberg has cast strong actors to portray these many roles, and the ensemble gives consistently excellent performances. While Tommy Lee Jones perhaps has the showiest supporting role as the outspoken Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens, David Strathairn and Hal Holbrook (a portrayer of Lincoln himself on stage and screen) find authenticity as Seward and Blair, respectively. The most surprising supporting performance, owing in equal parts to the strength of Kushner's script as to the acting, is Sally Field as Mary Lincoln. Although she is too old for the character (which is noticeable given that most of the other actors are pretty close to the age of the historic figures they portray), she not only gracefully embodies the First Lady's contradictory personality traits, she demonstrates some of the gifts -- noticeably a passion, and relative skill, for politics -- that must have served as the foundation for the lasting, though sometimes stormy, marriage between Abraham and Mary Lincoln.

Such character details, too many to mention, are but one aspect of the depth of research evident in virtually every aspect of the film. While there are a few mistakes and inaccuracies, the movie is overwhelmingly rooted in well-documented details -- a point made clear in the credits where more than a dozen noted Lincoln and Civil War historians are thanked for their assistance. From the set design -- including an amazing recreation of Lincoln's White House office -- to the period music incorporated into John Williams' outstanding score to the frequent inclusion of contemporary-recorded comments in the screenplay to the appearance, dress, and accents of the large supporting cast (even those with few lines), the film is consistently, and by Hollywood standards almost fanatically, accurate.

Even the feel of the movie points to this historical accuracy, which is a credit to Spielberg. Unlike some films "based on historic events" that simplify characters and plot details for clarity, there is a complexity, even messiness, to "Lincoln" that evokes the turbulence of January 1865. At times dialogue is overlapping or even muttered inaudibly, and there are disorienting, quick emotional shifts from the deadly serious to the ridiculous, as when yet another public reception painfully reminds both Lincolns of their son Willie's death during a previous formal White House dinner, but they must they must immediately happily welcome their guests in a receiving line.

With the usual top-notch production values of a Spielberg movie, added to Kushner's strong screenplay and the excellent acting ensemble headed by Day-Lewis, "Lincoln" is a remarkable film. Despite its short time span, it has an epic vision of the personalities and circumstances surrounding the central figure. And in the midst of those dramatic circumstances, it offers a compelling and vivid presentation of Lincoln the man, quirky and wise, compassionate and irreverent, and in some ways more impressive than even the marble statues.

Trailer Released for Spielberg's "Lincoln"

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 02:31:00 +0000

Earlier this evening, the official trailer for Steven Spielberg's long-awaited "Lincoln" premiered online (with a special online event featuring the director and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who plays Robert Lincoln in the film).

Overall, it certainly looks impressive (and sounds impressive, with that sweeping music playing underneath). I was pleasantly surprised at the scope implied by the trailer. Previous films about Lincoln (with much smaller casts) always had a pretty quaint feel, but this is evidently an epic where dozens of important people will surround the president at the center of the storm.

Among the locations/events I could identify in the trailer, aside from scenes of Lincoln in the White House: Lincoln with the troops (probably in late March 1865), the fall of Richmond and Lincoln's subsequent visit, the Hampton Roads conference (led by Lincoln and Confederate vice-president Alexander Stephens), debate (over the 13th Amendment?) in the House of Representatives, the Second Inaugural Address, the surrender of Robert E. Lee (at which Robert Lincoln was present), and the War Department Telegraph Office.

Only one thing bothers me in the trailer -- but it is a big thing. I'm not convinced that Daniel Day-Lewis has gotten Lincoln's voice right. The descriptions of it that survive imply that Lincoln had a rather high-pitched voice and that he never really lost his Kentucky -- or frontier -- twang. While the actor is certainly speaking in a higher range, I hear very little twang and very little of the slightly shrill quality sometimes ascribed to it. (One newspaper report famously had Lincoln beginning a speech, "Meester Cheerman.") Daniel Day-Lewis' approach sounds to me like a flat Hoosier accent, which does not match any of the contemporary descriptions of Lincoln's voice. Hopefully this is too short a sample of dialogue in the trailer, but it concerns me because I had high hopes that the notoriously precise actor would offer a definitive performance.

[You can read more about Lincoln's speaking voice from Harold Holzer here. He compares the description of Lincoln's voice to Kathryn Hepburn, which seems very a propos to me.]

Aside from this, though, I am pleasantly surprised by the trailer, which suggests that the project is more ambitious than I had imagined. More than this, the focus on race implies that screenwriter Tony Kushner has perhaps crafted a narrative arc from the debate over the 13th Amendment to Lincoln's April 11 speech, in which he suggests granting voting rights to African-Americans who have served in the Union army and navy, which would offer a new perspective on the more often-told Lincoln stories. I'm sure there will be a few more clues before the film is released in two months.

Yet Another Lincoln Movie?

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:55:00 +0000

Owing to my hectic summer schedule, and not having been in the mood, I have yet to venture out to see "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," though I have finally obtained a copy of the book on which the R-rated thriller is based. I imagine that I will be more anxious to see Steven Spielberg's long-awaited Lincoln biopic in December (a project that has taken about 15 years since he obtained the pre-publication movie rights to Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals").

Imagine my surprise today, though, when I came across this mention of yet another Lincoln-related movie. According to movie-related chatter online, actress Diane Kruger, perhaps best known for her appearance in "National Treasure," has revealed that she will play Lincoln's step-mother in "Green Blade Rising," which will be produced by noted director Terrence Mallick. Aside from the historically troubling statement that it will focus on Lincoln's Kentucky years -- and thus on a period before his biological mother Nancy died and his father remarried -- this seems like an interesting way to do a coming-of-age drama. On the other hand, given the disappointing box office for "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," I find it amazing that someone is willing to invest in a Lincoln movie that would seem, on its face, to have even less general appeal.

Book Review: The Global Lincoln

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:57:00 +0000

The Global Lincoln edited by Richard Carwardine and Jay Sexton (Oxford University Press, 2011), hardcover, 344 pages

William Lee Miller bookends his bestselling biography, President Lincoln, with an introduction and conclusion that focus on the global response to Abraham Lincoln. Miller contrasts the perfunctory greetings that Lincoln received from other heads of state when he assumed office with the more expansive condolences these leaders sent following his assassination. While Miller clearly believed that the changing tone offered a global appreciation, and even affirmation, of Lincoln's service as president, these chapters offered more questions than answers in my reading.

In a new way, after reading Miller's conclusion, I wondered if the global outpouring about Lincoln immediately following his assassination was a short-term emotional response or if it inaugurated Lincoln into the pantheon of noteworthy leaders, as it did in the United States. While Lincoln's cultural impact in the United States is fairly obvious, and has been the subject of many recent books, such cultural impact worldwide has been largely unstudied, especially outside of the British Isles.

The Global Lincoln, a series of essays edited by Richard Carwardine and Jay Sexton, seeks to explore this very question. Growing out of a conference sponsored jointly by the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission and Oxford University in 2009, the book brings together the research of several historians on the legacy of Abraham Lincoln around the world. While fully half of the essays focus on Europe (and half of those specifically on the United Kingdom and Ireland), there are also intriguing essays on Lincoln's reputation and cultural impact in India, Africa, East Asia, and, intriguingly, the American South.

The essays are a bit varied in their focuses. Some, like Harold Holzer's essay on the Lincoln image in Europe, build on previous work. A couple focus on Lincoln's specific impact during his presidency on Germany and Italy in one piece, and on Britain in another. Most, though, attempt a brief assessment on the Lincoln legacy over the last 150 years in specific countries or regions. In particular, essays by Vinay Lal and De-Min Tao on Lincoln's cultural impact in India and in China and Japan, respectively, are especially fascinating and provocative.

In large part, the individual chapters reinforce each other -- and the conclusions of books on Lincoln's impact in the United States -- showing that the person of Abraham Lincoln has been a fairly tractable and malleable figure, useful in different ways at various times in various contexts, though with certain limitations. They also demonstrate that Lincoln has been adopted as a global statesman, recognizable and studied around the world. The limitations of this book are straightforward. As in any new exploration, only so much ground can be covered. At times, the individual chapters seem to be hopscotching through history; more frustrating, though, is that large swaths of the globe -- the continent of Africa and the continent and a half of Latin America -- receive only a single chapter each.

Still, the overall strengths of The Global Lincoln far outweigh its limitations. The essays are strong, particularly those from well-known names in Lincoln/Civil War circles -- Richard Carwardine, Harold Holzer, and David Blight. And the project, long-overdue, invites the opening of new territory for future Lincoln and Civil War studies, namely the impact of this American crisis, and the examples of its key leaders facing that crisis, around the world.

Lincoln Author, William Lee Miller, Passes Away

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 02:38:00 +0000

Earlier today, I came across an obituary for William Lee Miller, the University of Virginia professor who authored Lincoln's Virtues and President Lincoln, both of which might be described as moral biographies of the 16th President. Having heard Miller lecture once on Lincoln, I was impressed with his erudition and his passion.

I have mixed feelings about his books. I highly recommend Lincoln's Virtues, particularly the opening chapters, as a long-overdue addition to the Lincoln biography. However, I struggle to appreciate the book on Lincoln's presidency, as I've written in a review of that book, finding it too hagiographic. Although I don't know if I wrote it in the review, I also strongly suspect that the book is narratively mis-framed with the chapters on foreign reputation.

My critique, though negative at times, came from my respect for Miller's scholarship, which allowed him to write influential books on multiple subjects, including several presidents of different centuries. And I mourn his loss, selfishly, because I know that he had been researching a project on Lincoln's use of Shakespeare. I can imagine few people who could tackle that enormous subject well, but I think that Miller, with his curiosity, his intellect, and his ability to describe things of complexity with subtle and flowing prose, would have been up to the task.

NEH Grant to Support Research into Lincoln's Anonymous Journalism

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Sun, 06 May 2012 01:51:00 +0000

The AP wire has a story this week about a National Endowment of the Humanities (NEH) grant to the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum to fund a study to determine what articles Lincoln may have authored in the Sangamo Journal from 1834 to 1842. According to the NEH, the project is entitled, "Is That You, Mr. Lincoln?: Applying Authorship Attribution to the Early Political Writings of Abraham Lincoln." UPDATE (5/7): Here is an article from The State Journal Register in Springfield with more details about how this project should work.

While this overly academic subtitle may be a bit mind-numbing, it refers to one of the now few under-examined parts of Lincoln's written works, determining what anonymous newspaper articles he likely wrote in his early political career. There are multiple references to Lincoln writing anonymous or pseudonymous articles for Illinois newspapers, especially the Sangamo Journal; and, in the fairly well-known and embarrassing story of Lincoln's almost-duel with James Shields, the start of the controversy was over a couple such articles. Over the years, historians have speculated which newspaper articles Lincoln may have written, mostly because they were looking into insights into his political beliefs during this time period.

Now this project will use multiple computer programs to analyze all of the articles in the period from 1834 to 1842 in the Sangamo Journal to determine, in a formalized manner, what articles Lincoln likely authored. While such analysis will not be decisive -- after all, consider the arguments over whether Lincoln personally authored the famous letter to Mrs. Bixby, which appears over his signature -- it should offer historians more context for Lincoln's years in the Illinois legislature.

More than this, at least from my perspective, is the opportunity to see how Lincoln matured as a politician from his early years to the years leading up the 1860 election and then his presidency. There are persistent contemporary accounts of Lincoln's willingness in early years to resort to personal attacks against his legislative opponents. And he may have used other distasteful tactics (at least to our eyes). Over the years, I've come to imagine that legislator Lincoln was very different than his presidential incarnation, mostly because I believe that there is no more firm believer than a convert. Given the extraordinary absence of such normal 19th century political behavior during Lincoln's presidency, and given the limited evidence, especially in the Shields' affair, that it was not always absent, I have long guessed that Lincoln "converted" himself from traditional politics to his unique approach evident in his later years, one almost devoid of malice (with perhaps one or two exceptions). This new research may offer some insight into this evolution as well.

Book Review: Did Lincoln Own Slaves?

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 05:40:00 +0000

Did Lincoln Own Slaves?: And Other Frequently Asked Questions About Abraham Lincoln by Gerald J. Prokopowicz (Pantheon, 2008), hardcover, 352 pages

Today many websites have an FAQ section, where "frequently asked questions" are answered. Applying this concept to the life and legacy of Abraham Lincoln, historian Gerald J. Prokopowicz asks and answers countless questions about the sixteenth president, including the gem mentioned in the title. Prokopowicz, chair of the history department at East Carolina University, is well-suited to the task, having served for nine years at the (now closed) Lincoln Museum in Fort Wayne, Indiana, where he likely heard most of these questions too many times to count.

In roughly chronological order, Prokopowicz proposes and answers questions touching key aspects of Lincoln's life, including his childhood, his adult life in Springfield, his presidency, the Gettysburg Address, and his assassination. The inquiries offer a wide perspective, responding as often to questions that might be asked by a curious child as to those from adults who have a more in-depth knowledge of history.

Prokopowicz is a pleasant authority, answering questions in a lively and engaging manner, frequently sharing a refreshing sense of humor. This writing style, along with an intelligent ordering of many questions, creates a surprising "page-turning" quality to the book, in spite of its basic Q & A approach. I expect that many will find the book to be an excellent read.

The years of study behind Prokopowicz's answers is evident as he shares knowledgeable, and often thorough, replies to the inquiries. Other Lincoln experts may argue that he comes down on the wrong side of some of the current debates in Lincoln scholarship -- I certainly disagreed with his assessments a time or two -- but cannot deny that he does a credible job explaining the contours of such controversies.

One such example is the book's title question -- did Lincoln own slaves? Rather than simply offering the basic answer, which is no, Prokopowicz uses it as a way to frame his consideration of modern doubts about portraying Lincoln as "The Great Emancipator, which is certainly one of the key current debates in the Lincoln world.

Long-time students of Lincoln are unlikely to learn much new in this book, though it does provide a handy reference to many of the common questions. Instead, this is a work intended to provide a helpful resource to the more casual student of Lincoln, who doesn't want to thumb through a biography -- and doesn't entirely trust an Internet search -- to answer basic questions about the sixteenth president.

Book Review; April '65

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:41:00 +0000

April '65: Confederate Covert Action in the American Civil War by William Tidwell (Kent State University Press, 1995), paperback, 264 pages

In the late 1980s, three authors, two historians and a longtime American intelligence officer, offered a compelling new theory o the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Published in 1988, Come Retribution used lots of circumstantial evidence to show Confederate government involvement in the planning of the ultimately fatal attack against Lincoln, first conceived as a kidnapping, by the Confederate Secret Service.

William Tidwell, the intelligence officer among the group, follows up that substantial work with more evidence in April '65: Confederate Covert Action and the American Civil War. In this case, he has dramatic evidence that suggests Confederate President Jefferson Davis was aware of the kidnapping plot and approved it.

Here, the case is again circumstantial. There are few new bits of evidence about the Lincoln kidnapping/assassination plot itself, but there is new evidence regarding other covert operations which tantalizingly suggest parallels to the Lincoln plot. Tidwell gives an overall mapping of covert operations in the Confederacy, considering how they were funded and how they were supervised and assessed. The evidence suggests that there were no "lone wolves" among the Confederate operatives, implicitly and preemptively rejecting an argument that although Booth might have been an operate, in the case of the Lincoln plot he was acting of his own volition.

Much evidence points to the use of Confederate gold funding some of the kidnapping plot, including the possible payment of gold to John Wilkes Booth. In this book, Tidwell documents the use of gold to fund all sorts of covert operations, and offers evidence that all such uses of Confederate gold required Davis' signature. This implies that Davis knew of, and approved of, some version of a plot against Lincoln in order to have issued a directive to the treasury to release some gold to involved operatives in Canada. (This inference is not ironclad, however, given that the funding for the Secret Service in Canada was made in large payments designed to cover multiple operations.)

Tidwell is always careful to never overstate his conclusions, leaving them implied most often. This is most obvious in the final chapter in which he details circumstantial evidence of the involvement of Mosby's raiders in the kidnapping plot. Using parole information of certain of Mosby's companies, he discovers that several of them surrendered after others along a line related to Booth's escape route, shortly after Booth's death at the hands of pursuing US troops. Alongside a few other extant orders, he traces the movements of many of Mosby's troops around Washington DC during the period of Lee's daring escape toward, and ultimate surrender at, Appomattox Court House. Tidwell posits that these soldiers were detached to facilitate Booth's escape after either kidnapping or killing Lincoln.

Although not as shocking as Come Retribution, this book furthers and supports the central thesis of that book that there was a larger Confederate operation behind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth. As with any circumstantial argument, the theory cannot be proven beyond doubt, butt the weight of the evidence makes the theory highly credible. If I doubt a few of Tidwell's conclusions, I find his overall assessment compelling, particularly in light of the known details of Booth's escape from Washington using a network of Confederate agents. Edward Steers, whose Blood on the Moon remains the best single volume on the assassination, also finds value in this research, incorporating some of it into his narrative.

In short, this book is a worthwhile addition to the large number of books on the Lincoln assassination. Unlike other books that posit wild conspiracy theories, this one rarely argues beyond the evidence or stretches the evidence -- and credulity -- to make its claims. At times a little dry (though less so than Come Retribution), it is always reasonable and coherent. For the student of Lincoln's assassination, it is an important new argument.

Large Collection of Union Telegrams

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:25:00 +0000

According to The Los Angeles Times, the Huntington Library in California has announced that it has acquired a large collection of materials relating to Union telegraphy during the Civil War. Reportedly preserved by Thomas Eckert, who ran the War Department Telegraph Office during the last part of the Lincoln presidency (and beyond), it includes 40 large albums of handwritten telegrams in chronological order. There also are several codebooks that reveal more about the Union telegraph code words used during the war.

This resource, once made available to scholars, has the potential to significantly alter our understanding of the war effort, particularly related to military logistics. There is also the distinct possibility that previously unknown Lincoln telegrams may be discovered. James McPherson, award-winning Civil War historian, notes in an interview that "it would have enriched my work" on Lincoln as commander in chief. It likely means that the recent book by Tom Wheeler, "Mr. Lincoln's T-Mail's," reviewed in November, is already outdated.

Even if no new Lincoln-dictated telegrams are discovered, the collection should impact our knowledge of Lincoln as a war-time leader. It is well-documented that Lincoln generally read through all recent telegraphic traffic during frequent visits to the War Department Telegraph Office. At the very least, this should allow great insight into what Lincoln "knew" as he made decisions from 1863-1865. Of course, it will take some dedicated research, meaning time, before the full value and impact of this material is known.

Lincoln Check Found

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:00:00 +0000

Last weekend, it was revealed that someone had located a small collection of checks signed by famous people in bank storage, including one signed by Abraham Lincoln dated just two days before his death. The sesquicentennial Civil War blog at The Washington Post, "A House Divided," has a nice entry about the check, including comments from Harold Holzer about its likely purpose. Holzer rightly comments on the emotional importance of the artifact because it is from the final week of Lincoln's life.

Images of Lincoln's check, and a couple of other presidential checks found in the collection, are available from this Washington Post article.

Missing Pages of 1862 Message Located

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:19:00 +0000

This morning, I reread Lincoln's 1862 Annual Message to Congress in preparation for my annual Lincoln sermon. In The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy Basler, there is a notation that the first two pages are missing and are reproduced from a periodical.

Imagine my surprise when I read this article at lunchtime, when a team from the Papers of Abraham Lincoln project announced that the first two pages had been located at the National Archives, along with a complete second copy, signed by Lincoln, of the 86 page message (handwritten, though evidently not by Lincoln himself).

While the discovery seems unlikely to alter anything -- there is no reference that the quoted passage differs in any way from the original handwritten pages -- it is nice to know that the complete document of this important state paper is now available for researchers and properly catalogued and preserved for posterity, "for a vast future also" that Lincoln mentions in the message's memorable conclusion.

Book Review: Lincoln for President

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 04:12:00 +0000

Lincoln for President: An Unlikely Candidate, An Audacious Strategy, and the Victory No One Saw Coming by Bruce Chadwick (Soucebooks, 2010), paperback, 416 pages

Prolific author Bruce Chadwick turns his attention to the climactic 1860 election in "Lincoln for President." As the title suggests, Abraham Lincoln is the primary focus, although the book offers a fairly comprehensive look at that decisive campaign which featured four main candidates. Like modern movie trailers that give away most of a film's surprises, Chadwick does not conceal his argument, succinctly given in the book's subtitle, "an unlikely candidate, an audacious strategy, and the victory no one saw coming."

Still, Chadwick offers an engaging narrative of the dramatic campaign, particularly relishing some of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering. He especially enjoys the wheeling and dealing, and even outright fraud, engaged in by Lincoln's unofficial campaign managers. Indeed, the circumstances surrounding the Republican convention draw much of Chadwick's attention, from the stacks of counterfeit entry tickets given to Lincoln supporters to the apparent promises made in return for the support of various delegations. In stark contrast to Doris Kearns Goodwin's famous argument, Chadwick believes that Lincoln's cabinet was the direct result of these convention deals, rather than the result of a governing philosophy. Although Goodwin is probably more correct, there is certain compelling evidence to support this alternate claim, such as Lincoln's ability to list his likely cabinet officers on election night.

The story of the general election in 1860 is perhaps less exciting than that summer's Republican convention, in part because of the anti-climactic conclusion. Despite Chadwick's attempts to contextualize the uncertainty of the fall campaign, Lincoln's election never seems in doubt. Still, the account is worth reading, particularly for those unfamiliar with the consequential election. Aside from offering a clear retelling, Chadwick excels at offering portraits of the four main candidates and, notably, the motivations of those voters most likely to support them. As such, the Constitutional Union Party, usually an afterthought, has a compelling, if somewhat melancholic, presence in this narrative. On the other hand, the story of the split in the Democratic Party is only adequately told here.

As the title suggests, though, the ascendancy of Abraham Lincoln is the focus. Much as Harold Holzer in "Lincoln President-Elect," Chadwick describes candidate Lincoln as engaged and quietly active behind-the-scenes. In particular, Lincoln seems consistently worried about maintaining cohesion among the disparate parts of the Republican Party and responding to any perceived threats, which is largely why the Constitutional Union Party has a larger role in this book. He writes letters and, more importantly, dispatches personal confidants to deal with key Republicans throughout the North. Further, the political animal in Lincoln possesses an intimate knowledge of the electoral calculus necessary for victory, which is apparent in some of his correspondence.

This book is a pleasant addition to the bulging Lincoln library. Engagingly written, with a wonderful appreciation for the personalities of several of the key players, it will enlighten and entertain those seeking to learn more about the 1860 election than is covered in a history class. On the other hand, Chadwick hardly breaks new ground in any of the narrative, which is regrettable because he hints at potential analyses, such as a social history that focuses as much on the voters as on the candidates in the history-changing election.

Book Review: Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:24:00 +0000

Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails: How Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War by Tom Wheeler (Harper, 2008), paperback, 256 pages

Abraham Lincoln's supreme political skill is an issue, if not the guiding theme, of countless biographies of the 16th president. His deft and usually compact style of language in his speeches and writings is well known, and has been the focus of renewed study in the last several years. All but unknown, and rarely mentioned, is Lincoln's fascination with science and technology throughout his lifetime. These three significant aspects of Lincoln's life overlap in Tom Wheeler's thought-provoking, if cheekily titled, "Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails: How Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War."

The telegraph, invented about a quarter-century before the start of the American Civil War, was just beginning to revolutionize communication in the late 1850s. Particularly useful to coordinate train traffic on railroads, newspapers began using the telegraph to share and print news even faster than railroads allowed. The government was slower to adopt the technology, but the onset of war encouraged its use by the War Department to facilitate troop and supply movements.

Wheeler contends that it was the young commander-in-chief, Abraham Lincoln, who best harnessed the capabilities of the telegraph. In the early months of the war, Lincoln was more prone to read telegraph traffic in the war office than to send and receive his own telegrams. When Stonewall Jackson's 1862 campaign in the Shenandoah Valley threatened Washington, however, Lincoln sent and received messages to ascertain the real threat to the capitol and to direct the military response.

The importance of Lincoln's telegrams in 1862 pales, though, beside what Lincoln learned in those days. After the spring of 1862, he increasingly used the telegraph to keep tabs on the far-flung Union armies. Through his variety of electronic notes -- some simple inquiries, some detailed directives -- he used the communications device to assert his authority as commander-in-chief in a way far beyond previous presidents. Not only were Lincoln's telegrams a persistent reminder to the generals of his desire to be informed about military movements, but also a way to insist that his political and military prerogatives be followed.

While this well-written book may show a different side of Lincoln's political genius to those unaware of his daily trips to the War Department Telegraph Office, the later chapters also offer a reassessment of Lincoln's leadership style. Most historians believe that Lincoln used any necessary means, including the telegraph, to deal with generals who frustrated him by their obstinacy or their lack of movement; once Grant and Sherman emerge as leaders who will act and follow Lincoln's direction, this conventional assessment goes, Lincoln had less need for oversight. Wheeler argues the opposite, showing that Lincoln's telegrams to Grant and Sherman were just as often filled with directives as those to earlier commanding generals. While Lincoln had less reason to attempt to micromanage maneuvers with Grant and Sherman, Lincoln still insisted that they follow his guidance on overall strategy and political matters, frequently using the telegraph to ensure that his wishes were known and followed.

Perhaps Wheeler's argument could have been augmented by a consideration of how Lincoln adapted the new technology and situation to his previous experience in party organizing and leadership in 1850s Illinois -- which would challenge the Marshall McLuhan dictum underlying Wheeler's book, that "the medium is the message." Still, this is a minor quibble with an otherwise strong book that is as informative as it is enjoyable to read. The reader will likely finish the book wondering if Lincoln's use of the telegraph was similar to, and possibly as significant as, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's skillful use of radio as president.

Book Review: Tried by War

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 02:33:00 +0000

Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief by James M. McPherson (The Penguin Press, 2008), hardcover, 384 pages

"Abraham Lincoln was the only president in American history whose entire administration was bounded by war," writes noted Civil War historian James M. McPherson at the outset of "Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief." Given that the southern insurrection took shape before Lincoln's inauguration and ended a few weeks after his assassination with a surrender of the last rebel army, this observation is correct. More important, though, is McPherson's implication: too little attention has been paid to Lincoln's military policy and decision-making within the breadth of Lincoln scholarship.

It would be incorrect to state that no attention has been paid; indeed, several books have been written on the very issue, in addition to other articles and the like. However, it is clear that such analysis has had limited impact on, and inclusion in, most biographies of the 16th president. Aside from issues related to generals Winfield Scott, George McClellan, and Ulysses Grant – and such analyses usually revolve more around interpersonal relationships than military policy – Lincoln's involvement in military policy is largely overlooked.

McPherson addresses this omission in a thought-provoking and engaging way in this well-researched and well-written book. With his characteristic ability to explain substantial issues clearly, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the great single-volume history of the Civil War, "Battle Cry of Freedom," explores Lincoln's growth in military matters from a neophyte to a superb commander in chief whose approach to this presidential responsibility became a model that other chief executives followed. In fact, McPherson argues that the concept and application of "war powers" was developed by Lincoln, virtually from scratch.

In his analysis, McPherson identifies five key components to presidential leadership of the military; of these, tactics, which Lincoln famously studied through on-the-job reading, is least important, in his assessment, while policy is most important. (Other key functions are national strategy, military strategy, and military operations.) From the beginning, McPherson is clear that being an able commander in chief is foremost, and perhaps necessarily, a political thing. An analysis of Lincoln's dealings with general in chief Winfield Scott at the outset of the war, in which Scott repeatedly advocates political policy under the guise of military strategy, sets the tone for McPherson's study, implying that Lincoln was already an above-average commander-in-chief even at the outset of the war, because of his political skills and his refusal to cow-tow to the military establishment.

Throughout, McPherson describes Lincoln as a very active, and increasingly capable, commander-in-chief. Perhaps the most striking aspect of his analysis, though, is a subtle refutation of conventional wisdom of Lincoln as a military leader. Most historians attribute Lincoln's involvement in military matters to a paucity of able and competent top-level leadership until the emergence of Grant in 1864. Although McPherson recognizes that Lincoln grew to appreciate and admire Grant's approach, he carefully shows that Lincoln very much supervised, and occasionally overruled, Grant after he became general in chief.

It is difficult to name any significant problems or oversights in McPherson's book, though I suppose some might quibble with bits and pieces of the analysis. Instead, the book seems a marvel of excellence, blending learned research, a discerning eye, and felicitous prose into a study certain to inform readers of all backgrounds. The book's accessibility, its consistent focus on its intended subject, and the well-deserved reputation of its author should cause the book to be influential in Lincoln studies for the next generation or two, a status it richly deserves.

Gettysburg National Military Park Receives Lock of Lincoln's Hair

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 19:01:00 +0000

There is an interesting story in today's Washington Post about a donation to the museum at the Gettysburg National Military Park - a lock of Abraham Lincoln's hair cut after his assassination.

Several such clippings of the late president's hair were taken after he died, included one requested by his widow, Mary Lincoln.

Book Review: Abraham Lincoln in the Post-Heroic Era

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Sun, 08 May 2011 00:11:00 +0000

Abraham Lincoln in the Post Heroic Era: History and Memory in Late Twentieth-Century America by Barry Schwartz (University of Chicago Press, 2009), hardcover, 410 pages

More than 140 years since his death, Abraham Lincoln is enjoying a renaissance of sorts. Not only is the publishing industry producing several Lincoln-related titles each year, but recent ad campaigns have portrayed the 16th president in a completely new role: television salesman. This recent exposure, however, does not necessarily correspond to a heightened recognition or appreciation of Lincoln, as Barry Schwartz makes clear in "Abraham Lincoln In the Post-Heroic Era." This is the second volume examining the history of Lincoln's legacy, covering the period from the Great Depression to the present. (The previous volume, "Abraham Lincoln and the Forge Of National Memory," surveyed the years from Lincoln's death in 1865 until the 1920s.)

As might be expected, Schwartz studies the portrayal of Lincoln in artwork, editorial cartoons, statuary, and popular written materials, particularly newspaper and magazine articles. More than this, though, Schwartz uses the results of several surveys conducted over more than a half-century and consults dozens of school textbooks in an attempt to determine and trace Lincoln's prestige through this period. By several measures, Lincoln's reputation peaks during the World War II-era and declines thereafter, with a particularly steep drop during the 1960s and 1970s.

Schwartz's argument is compelling, if complex and sophisticated. Partially, he believes there is less need for Lincoln's unifying reputation in this post-modern age as compared with the World War II-era. Beyond that, he agrees with other scholars who see a post-heroic age which began some time between Kennedy's assassination and the Watergate break-in. Schwartz notes that this decline is not only in Lincoln's reputation, but in the reputations of other key historical figures as well. Whether due to postmodern ideas about equality, the probing for and uncovering of gritty details in the lives of historical figures, or a change in focus in the national narrative, the differences between the 1940s Lincoln in the 1980s Lincoln are radically different.

During this period, one particular aspect of Lincoln's legacy has come to the forefront, overshadowing many of the traits that previous generations had celebrated: Lincoln as precursor to racial equality. While this might be expected during the Civil Rights Era, it has developed in the decades since to the point where most of Lincoln's actions are seen through the lens of the Emancipation Proclamation and minority rights – even the Gettysburg Address, which Schwartz promises to discuss at length in a future volume.

In light of an overarching narrative that traces the rise and fall of Lincoln's prestige, the concluding chapter is unexpected and surprising. Having explored Lincoln within the sociological theory of collective memory, which suggests that each generation adapts beliefs and memories of previous generations to its own needs, Schwartz suggests that the person of Abraham Lincoln has developed its own inertia and stands outside of this adaptation process, at least in part. Perhaps only a self-perpetuating memory of Lincoln can withstand the winds that cut heroes down to size in the post-heroic era.

For the most devoted students of Lincoln, though, this may be more disheartening than hopeful. As Schwartz writes about Lincoln's present legacy in American cultural memory:

"As each generation modifies beliefs held by its forebears, an assemblage of old beliefs remains and coexists with the new, including old beliefs about the past itself. Lincoln therefore remains the man of the people and the man above the people, The Savior of the Union and emancipator of its slaves, the embodiment of rugged individualism and the welfare state, the personification of humor and sorrow, iron will and compassion. That is the man we knew yesterday; that is the man we know today.

"However, these continuities do not restore the Lincoln of the 1930s and 1940s, the man Americans looked up to and emulated. He is now less the Savior of the Union, less the rugged individualist, less the man of sorrow and humor, less the man of steel and velvet. He is now a smaller man, known by more, adored by fewer, emulated by fewer still." (263)

Such devoted students of Lincoln, however, will need to read Schwartz's book, a towering contribution to the nascent study of Lincoln's legacy. Mixing strong research, well-crafted prose, and a great amount of nuance, this volume describes the complex evolution of the memory of Abraham Lincoln, evident in popular culture and scholarship alike.

Book Review: Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 03:11:00 +0000

Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory by Barry Schwartz (University of Chicago Press, 2000), hardcover, 382 pages

Over ten years ago, while visiting Washington DC, several people and I decided to walk down to the National Mall late at night. Mostly, the streets were empty, until we arrived at the Lincoln Memorial after 11 pm. More surprising than the number of people that early March night were the fact that there were two tour buses full of tourists visiting at that late hour. Even then, I wondered what attracted so many people, at all hours, to climb the marble steps to stand at the foot of the seated, yet imposing, Lincoln.

In the vast amount of Lincoln-related literature, few people have attempted to answer the question of Lincoln's prominence in the almost 150 years after his death. The most comprehensive attempt, as yet, is a two-volume work mapping Lincoln's legacy from his assassination to the present. Written by sociologist Barry Schwartz, who previously researched George Washington's legacy, Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory is the first volume.

Focusing on the period between Lincoln's assassination in 1865 and the 1924 dedication of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC, Schwartz details the increasing influence and prominence of Lincoln's legacy, particularly during the Progressive Era. Unlike other assessments, including Merrill Peterson's argument in his 1994 book Lincoln in American Memory that Lincoln's prestige rose sharply in the wake of his assassination and continued upward, Schwartz has a more sophisticated argument. While there was an initial surge of Lincoln-related material in the months following his assassination, Schwartz argues that Lincoln's legacy didn't really begin to rise until the 20th Century, about two generations after his death.

Schwartz's overall view of the rise, plateau, and the dramatic rise of Lincoln in national memory is persuasive, particularly in the final chapters of his book. Unfortunately, the narrative is almost crippled by the insistence that Lincoln's prestige was virtually nil until the moment he was cut down by an assassin's bullet. While it is true that Lincoln was a divisive figure during an highly divisive era, and as such rabidly opposed by legions of people, including many in the North, and only tolerated by others, including many leading Republicans, there were people who admired his leadership and recognized his influence.

Part of this analysis seems to be due to Schwartz working back from the 1920s to 1865 and struggling to comprehend the period from 1870 to 1900. Citing the work of others, especially Michael Kammon, he argues that the late 19th Century seems an ideal time for Lincoln's prestige to rise dramatically. Since it does not, he struggles to explain the delay, and implicitly suggests that it stems from greater antipathy toward Lincoln by those of his generation than usually recognized.

One of the prime pieces of evidence Schwartz cites to develop this argument is a comparison between Lincoln's legacy and that of George Washington during the late 1800s. By most measures, including many quantitative ones like number of articles in newspapers and magazines, Washington is more influential than Lincoln during the last decades of the 19th century. However, the amazing thing is the frequency with which Lincoln is mentioned compared to Washington. Even before the Progressive Era, Lincoln's reputation is clearly on the rise in national memory because he stands outside of Washington's shadow in ways that other influential Americans of the period, even Andrew Jackson, do not. (This is apparent even in 1865, if one compares the image of Washington in eulogies of Lincoln to that in eulogies preached following the deaths in office of William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor.)

Entering the 20th century, though, Schwartz's work is almost breath-taking. After detailing how different parties and social movements tried to appropriate parts of Lincoln's biography to support their cause -- even the socialists -- Schwartz details how the prestige of Lincoln surpassed even Washington's reputation as a model for national unity, especially in the years of World War I and the years thereafter. In particular, Schwartz takes great care to describe how Lincoln's unifying image was a composite of parts that were not entirely reconcilable, a point vividly displayed in the contrasting memorials to Lincoln in Washington DC and at the site of his Kentucky birthplace.

There is much to admire in this well-researched and well-written book, particularly in the final third of the text. Using collective memory, a sociological concept that only occasionally appears in books outside that field, Schwartz gamely attempts to see the legacy of Lincoln both from the perspective of the use of the Lincoln image and reputation and from the evident reception of such usage -- the latter being much more challenging. That he mostly succeeds is a testament to his precision of thought and scholarly craft that he brings to the project.

Many with long-standing assumptions about the rise of Lincoln's reputation in national memory will find their theories significantly challenged, if not contradicted. And while there are some limitations, overall the book is an important account of the transformation of Lincoln from divisive wartime president to unifying icon.

2011 Lincoln Prize Announced

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 02:41:00 +0000

Gettysburg College and the Gilder Lehrman Institute have announced that the 2011 Lincoln Prize will be awarded to Eric Foner for his book, The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. Foner, a named professor at Columbia University, has written several books on Lincoln and the Civil War era, including a couple of well-regarded volumes on Reconstruction.

Perhaps just as interesting as this award was the committee's decision to class all of the six other finalists with Honorable Mention status.

Though I have not yet read Foner's book, I imagine that it offers something recently lacking in books about Lincoln's views on race and slavery: a sophisticated consideration of a very complicated subject. Too often, Lincoln's words are judged by today's standards and understandings of race, which usually lead to unnecessarily harsh condemnation or a complete misunderstanding of the context in which they were made.

The Lincoln Prize will be awarded to Foner on May 11.

Alfred Whital Stern Collection of Lincolniana

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 02:06:00 +0000

Earlier this week, the Jewish Journal published an article about noted Lincoln collector Alfred Whital Stern, whose 11,000 item collection was donated to the Library of Congress in 1950. It is difficult to overestimate the significance of this part of the collection, which alongside the presidential papers given by Abraham Lincoln's son Robert, forms the heart of the extensive catalog of Lincoln-related in the Library of Congress.

Perhaps the most interesting discovery in this article, for me, was the fact that Stern donated over 1400 books to Hebrew University in Jerusalem a few years before he donated the majority of the collection to the Library of Congress.

As Daniel Weinberg of the Abraham Lincoln Book Shop says in the article, "Stern was a monumental figure, his name is writ large in my mind of the Lincoln collectors."

National Archives Reveals Altered Lincoln Document

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Patty) — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 03:37:00 +0000

Today, the National Archives announced that it had determined one of the signed Abraham Lincoln items in its collection, a pardon for Private Patrick Murphy (which appears above), had been physically altered. One digit in the original written date was altered, so that Lincoln's endorsement of April 14, 1864 appeared to be signed on April 14, 1865 (closeup below). This implied that the pardon was granted on the day Lincoln was shot, making it one of his final acts in office.

While Lincoln's frequent use of pardons and amnesty to prevent many soldiers from being executed is well documented, the image of Lincoln sparing the life of a poor soldier -- who likely would have been executed by firing squad -- on the very day that Lincoln himself would fall victim to an assassin's bullet is filled with irony and pathos.

The storytelling potential -- and the economic benefit of publishing the story -- appear to be the motive for the alteration. The National Archives announced that Thomas Lowry, who authored a book on Lincoln and cases of military justice featuring this story of an April 14, 1865 pardon of Murphy, has confessed to altering the document with a pen he smuggled into the National Archives during his research. (Lowry is evidently claiming, through newspaper reports, that the confession was given under duress, though the image of National Archives investigators using oppressive techniques to obtain a confession for a crime which cannot be charged seems rather incredible -- the statute of limitations has expired on this crime.)

The news seems to be prompting national attention, with full stories already by The New York Times and The Washington Post (and probably others). It also has been appearing on other blogs, including Kevin Levin's popular Civil War History and The Abraham Lincoln Blog. Across all of them, the tone is one of outrage -- on a spectrum from veiled to blatant -- at Lowry's alleged act. In addition, there is a sense that a false history has been corrected, with a "too good to be true" tale of one final pardon being disproved after over a decade.

Craig Symonds, who won the Lincoln Prize for his book Lincoln and His Admirals, rightly implies in The New York Times that this change is unimportant, given the overwhelming evidence of Lincoln's involvement in granting such pardons. One could go further and state the obvious -- Lincoln still issued this pardon while President, meaning that the only value that has been changed is not historical, but emotional. Lincoln's final day is still filled with plenty of emotional moments -- breakfast with his full family, interactions with many of his favorite staff, a carriage ride with his wife. It also has the issue of pardon and amnesty, given that reconstruction was almost certainly discussed at that day's meeting of the Cabinet.

I find the story unsettling, though in different ways than the initial reports. In a country where many primary source documents are available for viewing by anyone who requests such a privilege, it seems likely that this breach of trust occurs more than we'd like to imagine. If a crude alteration can escape notice for a period of years, what if a skillful forger were involved? Should most of our primary source documents be more suspect?

This signature could have been discovered much sooner if anyone had thought to consult The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, which has annotated transcriptions of most of Lincoln's writings, including almost all of it in the National Archives and Library of Congress. All of the documents are listed chronologically in the Collected Works, so it would have taken a sharp eye to find this specific endorsement, dated April 14, 1864 "To Joseph Holt." Still, someone should have asked the obvious question -- how was this document missed by editor Roy Basler and his team? This question should have raised a red flag, which would have brought closer physical inspection of the document itself. (In recent years, the Collected Works have been fully searchable online, which would have made such cross-checking even quicker, especially given that Pvt. Murphy's name is mentioned in the annotation.)

More troubling is the implicit slur against Lowry's professional standing, or lack thereof, perhaps as a means to explain how this action could occur. Lowry is referred to as an "amateur historian" in both the Post and the Times -- the National Archives refers to him as "a long-time Lincoln researcher." An "amateur historian" is suspect, given that they do not have the academic credentials, or reputation, to back up their research.

In the video embedded in the National Archives' press release, there is a more subtle indictment of Lowry. Trevor Plante, the Acting Chief of Reference at the National Archives, who is credited with raising questions about the pronounced "5" in the document's date, says in an interview, "It's very galling and upsetting to me, as a trained historian, that someone would change a document..." [emphasis mine].

Is it too flippant to admit that I find that comment galling, along with the innuendo in the news articles? Given that the history of the field of history is heavily reliant on non-academically trained historians, the implication that the actions and findings of such "amateur historians" are suspect is ridiculous. (As is the term "amateur historians," given that large numbers of such authors were paid for their writing.) Academic training has little bearing on whether someone is willing to commit forgery or to desecrate an historical artifact -- though one could argue that such training may influence whether the perpetrator of fraud will be caught.

There is no plausible defense for the likely partial destruction of this document (the National Archives says it will attempt to restore the original "4" of the date). But I find it more troubling that trained historians failed to identify the forgery sooner, given their presumed expertise in dealing with primary documents (still as much art as science) and the professional encouragement for peer review and cross referencing. (A questioning of the guild of historians, especially Lincoln historians, will have to wait for another day, except to note that there is occasional evidence that even "trained historians" take shortcuts in completing their work.)

This critique of the professional historical community is not merely an idle act of poking fun -- after all, I could likely be included in such a community given my collegiate and graduate education. This incident -- and others like it -- reminds us of the need for all historians to be critical, even when dealing with documents that are presumed to be authentic originals. As another Lincoln Prize winner, Elizabeth Brown Pryor, proved in her book Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters, the wealth of information in primary documents must be contextualized to be understood and appreciated. The context for the pardon, such as the fact that army records should have indicated Lincoln's decision, or even the general observation that Lincoln usually went through several military capital cases at a time, meaning that there should be decisions in multiple such cases on the date of any granted pardon, seems to have been overlooked, or even ignored.

Ignoring context, skipping over cross-referencing, forgetting to be curious whenever a story seems too good to be true -- these are greater threats to historical accuracy than someone sneaking an ink pen into a repository of documents. Bad history began with an unfortunate hoax and a forgery, but it was perpetuated by others who failed to ask the right questions -- and it was unchecked until someone asked the right question.