Better Book about Abraham Lincoln

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

I am going to purchase a book about Abraham Lincoln. I wonder which of these I ought to buy and read first? Lincoln is my favorite historical figure who isn't definitely and obviously a Christian (although from my reading I currently do believe he was converted sometime in his second term) and while I eventually wish to tackle Burlingame's masterwork I don't have the time, money, or energy at this juncture.

 

[Jake]

I've been reading through biographies of the Presidents, though sort of by accident I have read Hayes through TR so far. I am looking to now pause and read presidents 1-18. I have found this blog to have really good reviews and recommendations of Lincoln biographies, so maybe check out his list: https://bestpresidentialbios.com/2014/06/28/the-best-biographies-of-abraham-lincoln/

I agree that Lincoln is a fascinating figure. A relatively inexperienced man ended up leading the country through one of our most difficult periods. I'm excited to read more about him soon.

 

[DanSSwing]

The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo is the one to read. Most of them are just hagiographies by people who love Lincoln for making the federal government a god.

 

[EvanF]

The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo is the one to read. Most of them are just hagiographies by people who love Lincoln for making the federal government a god.

DiLorenzo is known for a bias toward the lost cause school of interpretation.

 

[Luther'sHammer]

DiLorenzo is known for a bias toward the lost cause school of interpretation.

I have never heard of the "the lost cause school of interpretation". Can you explain?

 

[EvanF]

I have never heard of the "the lost cause school of interpretation". Can you explain?

In a few words it is a school of historical interpretation that frames the civil war as primarily fought for reasons other than the preservation and expansion of slavery in north america. The name is drawn from the 1866 book "The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates", by Edward A. Pollard.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

I have never heard of the "the lost cause school of interpretation". Can you explain?

Lost Cause, an interpretation of the American Civil War viewed by most historians as a myth that attempts to preserve the honour of the South by casting the Confederate defeat in the best possible light. It attributes the loss to the overwhelming Union advantage in manpower and resources, nostalgically celebrates an antebellum South of supposedly benevolent slave owners and contented enslaved people, and downplays or altogether ignores slavery as the cause of war.

-Encyclopedia Brittanica

 

[DanSSwing]

DiLorenzo is known for a bias toward the lost cause school of interpretation.

DiLorenzo’s book is not about why the South fought. It’s about why Lincoln fought.

 

[Luther'sHammer]

In a few words it is a school of historical interpretation that frames the civil war as primarily fought for reasons other than the preservation and expansion of slavery in north america. The name is drawn from the 1866 book "The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates", by Edward A. Pollard.

Thanks - that helps. I personally tend to be sympathetic to revisionist history, so I have always been interested in reading books such as DiLorenzo’s.

 

[Phil D.]

Reviewing for The Independent Review, Richard M. Gamble noted that DiLorenzo's book "manages to raise fresh and morally probing questions" and that it "exposes Lincoln's embarrassing views on race, his ambition for economic nationalism, his rewriting of the history of the founding of the nation, his cavalier violation of constitutional limits on the presidency, and his willingness to wage a barbaric total war to achieve his ends". But, Gamble notes that The Real Lincoln "is seriously compromised by careless errors of fact, misuse of sources, and faulty documentation," which taken all together "constitute a near-fatal threat to DiLorenzo's credibility as a historian."

Ken Masugi of the Claremont Institute wrote in National Review that "DiLorenzo frequently distorts the meaning of the primary sources he cites, Lincoln most of all." Masugi provides the following example:

Consider this inflammatory assertion: "Eliminating every last black person from American soil, Lincoln proclaimed, would be 'a glorious consummation.'" Compare the nuances and qualifications in what Lincoln actually said: "If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means, succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, with bright prospects for the future; and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation." One need not be a Lincoln admirer to recognize that DiLorenzo is making an unfair characterization. DiLorenzo actually gets so overwrought that at one point he attributes to Lincoln racist views Lincoln was attacking.

 

[Joshua]

Thanks, Phil. I would be interested if you know if Mr. Gamble spend much time pointing out the "careless errors of fact, misuse of sources, and faulty documentation"?

Primary source records of Lincoln's words, and historical record of many of his governing actions -in my own estimation- are enough to soil the hero reputation he has gained over the years by what DiLorenzo has styled (and I tend to agree) the Lincoln Gatekeepers have purveyed.

 

[Phil D.]

Thanks, Phil. I would be interested if you know if Mr. Gamble spend much time pointing out the "careless errors of fact, misuse of sources, and faulty documentation"?

Gamble listed numerous fallacies of the book as follows: "Thomas Jefferson was not among the framers of the Constitution (pp. 69–70); Lincoln advised sending freed slaves to Liberia in a speech in 1854, not "during the war" (pp. 16–17); Lincoln was not a member of the Illinois state legislature in 1857 (p. 18); the Commerce Clause was not an "amendment,"; Thaddeus Stevens was a Pennsylvania representative, not a senator (p. 140); and Fort Sumter was not a customs house (p. 242)." Additionally: "In chapter 3, DiLorenzo claims that in a letter to Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln "admitted that the original [Emancipation] proclamation had no legal justification, except as a war measure" (p. 37). His source, however, is the recollections of a conversation (not a letter) that portrait artist Francis Bicknell Carpenter (not Chase) had with Lincoln, and at no point do these recollections sustain DiLorenzo's summary of them. Moreover, in the reference for this section, DiLorenzo misidentifies the title of his source as Paul Angle's The American Reader, when in fact the jumbled material comes from Angle's The Lincoln Reader." He also notes that DiLorenzo claims, for example, "that in the four years between 1860 and 1864, population in the thirteen largest Northern cities rose by 70 percent" (p. 225)." Gamble checks the source and finds it says that total rate of growth took place over 15 years.

 

[Joshua]

Gamble listed numerous fallacies of the book as follows: "Thomas Jefferson was not among the framers of the Constitution (pp. 69–70); Lincoln advised sending freed slaves to Liberia in a speech in 1854, not "during the war" (pp. 16–17); Lincoln was not a member of the Illinois state legislature in 1857 (p. 18); the Commerce Clause was not an "amendment,"; Thaddeus Stevens was a Pennsylvania representative, not a senator (p. 140); and Fort Sumter was not a customs house (p. 242)." Additionally: "In chapter 3, DiLorenzo claims that in a letter to Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln "admitted that the original [Emancipation] proclamation had no legal justification, except as a war measure" (p. 37). His source, however, is the recollections of a conversation (not a letter) that portrait artist Francis Bicknell Carpenter (not Chase) had with Lincoln, and at no point do these recollections sustain DiLorenzo's summary of them. Moreover, in the reference for this section, DiLorenzo misidentifies the title of his source as Paul Angle's The American Reader, when in fact the jumbled material comes from Angle's The Lincoln Reader." He also notes that DiLorenzo claims, for example, "that in the four years between 1860 and 1864, population in the thirteen largest Northern cities rose by 70 percent" (p. 225)." Gamble checks the source and finds it says that total rate of growth took place over 15 years.

Those things will not help a man's scholastic credibility, will they? Thank you for the info.

 

[Phil D.]

Writing in 2013 about DiLorenzo's book Rich Lowry said:

The anti-Lincolnites hate that the North instituted a progressive income tax; they never bother to complain that the Confederacy did the same. They hate that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; they never note that Jefferson Davis did, too. They hate that the North resorted to a draft; they don't care that the Confederacy also had one. They hate that Lincoln fought a war against his countrymen; it evidently never occurs to them that Jefferson Davis shot back (let alone that he fired the first shot).

 

[Joshua]

Writing in 2013 about DiLorenzo's book Rich Lowry said:

The anti-Lincolnites hate that the North instituted a progressive income tax; they never bother to complain that the Confederacy did the same. They hate that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; they never note that Jefferson Davis did, too. They hate that the North resorted to a draft; they don't care that the Confederacy also had one. They hate that Lincoln fought a war against his countrymen; it evidently never occurs to them that Jefferson Davis shot back (let alone that he fired the first shot).

Regrettably, there is nothing new under the sun. Would that men be consistent and principled in their just criticisms, regardless of the the party/side of the "offenders." Many such cases in all ages, and quite grievous. Even still tu quoque argumentation oft distracts from the principles argued too.

 

[Phil D.]

Anytime I see a book or article with "...the real..." in its title, I am immediately skeptical. Maybe because I've read too many article's that have titles something like "the real Calvin" or "the real implications of Reformed theology" that are total hogwash.

 

[DanSSwing]

Writing in 2013 about DiLorenzo's book Rich Lowry said:

The anti-Lincolnites hate that the North instituted a progressive income tax; they never bother to complain that the Confederacy did the same. They hate that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; they never note that Jefferson Davis did, too. They hate that the North resorted to a draft; they don't care that the Confederacy also had one. They hate that Lincoln fought a war against his countrymen; it evidently never occurs to them that Jefferson Davis shot back (let alone that he fired the first shot).

Sounds like Lowry is more interested in complaining that DiLorenzo didn’t write a book about Jefferson Davis rather than addressing what he actually did write. Some Republicans are willing to go to ANY lengths to keep Lincoln as a party hero.

 

[Joshua]

Anytime I see a book or article with "...the real..." in its title, I am immediately skeptical. Maybe because I've read too many article's that have titles something like "the real Calvin" or "the real implications of Reformed theology" that are total hogwash.

The Real McCoy Phil D! (except I mean it in earnest, Brother!)

 

[Phil D.]

The Real McCoy Phil D!

Oh, believe me, I know hogwash when I hear it..!

 

[DanSSwing]

Reviewing for The Independent Review, Richard M. Gamble noted that DiLorenzo's book "manages to raise fresh and morally probing questions" and that it "exposes Lincoln's embarrassing views on race, his ambition for economic nationalism, his rewriting of the history of the founding of the nation, his cavalier violation of constitutional limits on the presidency, and his willingness to wage a barbaric total war to achieve his ends". .

Did Gamble recommend another book that honestly discusses these issues but without making DiLorenzo’s factual errors?

 

[Phil D.]

Did Gamble recommend another book that honestly discusses these issues but without making DiLorenzo’s factual errors?

Not that I know of. He may have.

 

[EvanF]

Every time I hear about how Lincoln was actually more racist than the seccessionists and how he never actually advocated for emancipation until it was politically expedient, I always wonder why his election was enough to propel the slave states toward war. Did anyone tell them Lincoln actually hated blacks and wasn't a threat to the "peculiar institution"?

 

[Phil D.]

Do I like Lincoln? Yes, a whole lot! Did Lincoln have his sins and faults? Many! - as did Grant, Davis and Lee (GASP!!). Did Lincoln the politician at times connive, strategize, compromise, agitate, scheme, conspire, obfuscate, change his mind, double-deal, double back, deflect, exaggerate, and recklessly endanger other interests in pursuit of his own vision? Yes - as is the nature of politics! Lincoln may have been the most complex person we've ever had as president, presiding over the most complex times in our nation's history. But unless one is prepared to say Lincoln was an outright liar, charlatan and devil (...which I'm sure some are...), one can't read his actual writings (...in light of his explosive historical milieu and in full context, please...) and not come away impressed by his oratory brilliance, overall intelligence, political savvy, and, yes, personal integrity. Are some biographies too hagiographical? Certainly. Are others too defamatory? So it would seem.

 

[Ploutos]

Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogy gives what would seem to be an even-handed treatment of Lincoln. It's not a biography of Lincoln, of course. Nonetheless, it doesn't whitewash his faults or his constitutional overreach.

My personal opinion? He was a great politician but not a good man, a true forerunner in spirit of Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

I am interested in Lincoln's leadership abilities and natural virtue. His life, as I know it, is incredibly fascinating - and I'm not sure what I could hear that would make it not so.

I would be interested in knowing more about his personal faults but I am perfectly aware that he was not a constitutional originalist or (for much of his life, at least) a Christian and I do not like learning about him because I admire his high view of the US Constitution.

I am not interested in a CSA-sympathetic smear piece.
[automerge]1777386975[/automerge]
This poll (see above) also hasn't been extremely so far in picking a book.

 

[Jake]

By the way, you may be interested in this anecdote: https://archive.nytimes.com/opinion.../2014/12/04/lincoln-god-and-the-constitution/

The author of this blog post wrote a fascinating book on ARP and RP history called Founding Sins that I also recommend.

 

[DanSSwing]

I am not interested in a CSA-sympathetic smear piece.
[automerge]1777386975[/automerge]
This poll (see above) also hasn't been extremely so far in picking a book.

Pretty much any book that questions Lincoln’s ad bellum decisions will be labeled a “CSA-sympathetic smear piece.” Some people have far too much invested in the myth of Lincoln as an American hero to allow any of it to be questioned. Even more so now that they see the GOP as the only thing standing between the Democrat/Communist party and the complete destruction of the country. They don’t think the GOP (and therefore the country) can survive without the Lincoln hero myth, especially given the way the Democrats/Communists are weaponizing race.
[automerge]1777399162[/automerge]

Do I like Lincoln? Yes, a whole lot!.

I like the Lincoln I learned about in school too. Unfortunately that Lincoln is a fictional character.

 

[Phil D.]

I like the Lincoln I learned about in school too. Unfortunately that Lincoln is a fictional character.

I also referenced the fact that I have read extensively his own writings, as well as other writings from the period, not just later biographies. That’s the basis on which I form my opinion.

 

[RamistThomist]

Every time I hear about how Lincoln was actually more racist than the seccessionists and how he never actually advocated for emancipation until it was politically expedient, I always wonder why his election was enough to propel the slave states toward war. Did anyone tell them Lincoln actually hated blacks and wasn't a threat to the "peculiar institution"?

My guess is the slave states believed that future territories would be free states and a future Congress would pass an amendment abolishing slavery. Pointing out that Lincoln was racist (and he probably was) wouldn't have made a difference. The South would have said, "Of course he was. Everyone, both North and South, thinks like that."

 

[EvanF]

My guess is the slave states believed that future territories would be free states and a future Congress would pass an amendment abolishing slavery. Pointing out that Lincoln was racist (and he probably was) wouldn't have made a difference. The South would have said, "Of course he was. Everyone, both North and South, thinks like that."

They certainly voiced that concern, but the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 had already moved the issue heavily in favor of the slave states, and the Missouri Compromise thirty years before that established the principle of balancing new slave and free states north and south of a geographic discriminator - not excluding new slave states. Unless there was a particular fear about Lincoln himself, such as that he himself posed a threat to the slave power, I don't understand why his election would have triggered secession. The way the Lost Cause portrays Lincoln, he couldn't have cared less about slavery or emancipation.