Book Review: The Global Lincoln

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

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.  

Random Lincoln Soundbites

It's Friday ("Take out the trash day" in modern political parlance), and I'm cleaning out my Lincoln-related inbox of the random stories I've been collecting.  None of them merit a full post, but I couldn't quite overlook them either.

Lincoln scholar reviews recent Lincoln books

Up and coming Lincoln scholar Jason Emerson, author of The Madness of Mary Lincoln and Lincoln the Inventor, offers his assessment of the most important recent books about Abraham Lincoln.  His piece, from the April 2009 edition of American Heritage, is available on their website.

Piece on Mary Lincoln

Erin Carlson Mast, of the Lincoln Cottage, has a special guest post on PreservationNation about Mary Lincoln.  It is a wonderful piece that tries to explain how some of the harsh treatment of Mary is unfair, although part of it stems from her often abrasive personality.  You can read it here.  (An aside: I visited the Lincoln Cottage last month and was very impressed by the facility and by the warmth of those who worked there.)

William Lee Miller on Lincoln and Shakespeare

William Lee Miller, author of Lincoln's Virtues and President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman, is currently researching Lincoln's fascination with Shakespeare, which should be a fine book.  Last month, Miller gave a lecture about the project in Virginia, which has been posted as a podcast here.  Miller is an engaging speaker, so I'm sure the lecture is entertaining and informative.

New Lincoln Bobblehead

Everyone has a bobblehead these days.  It used to be limited to superstar athletes; now everyone on the bench has a bobblehead too.  Plus, political figures have gotten in on the act; there are several bobblehead Obamas floating around these days.  Lincoln has gotten the bobblehead treatment -- one of them sits on my desk (a gift).  Next month, a new Lincoln-related bobblehead will be released, this one of the Lincoln Memorial.  (If they can make a lifesize bobblehead Jesus, I suppose they can make a bobblehead marble statue.)

Lincoln Symposium at the Library of Congress

On March 4, the Library of Congress sponsored a symposium on Abraham Lincoln, held in conjunction with their fantastic bicentennial exhibition "With Malice Toward None" (which I will overview in an upcoming entry). The symposium, held on the 148th anniversary of Lincoln's first inauguration (and, though unsaid, the 144th anniversary of Lincoln's second inauguration), featured six lectures, mostly focusing on aspects directly related to Lincoln's presidency.

I was fortunate to attend the lectures, held in the Coolidge Auditorium in the basement of the Jefferson Building. While the room was warm and there weren't long enough breaks (leading to information overload by the end of the day), the audience was large and rightfully appreciative of the speakers, who offered mostly excellent and accessible remarks.

Yesterday, the Library of Congress uploaded the lectures onto the webcast section of their website, meaning that you can listen to any or all of them -- total running time with introductions and questions is 320 minutes. The first three lectures (Holzer, McPherson, Miller) are here; the second three (Morel, Wilson, Leonard) are here. [Until I attended the symposium, I had no idea that the Library of Congress was putting such things online. Kudos to them for embracing the technology and broadening the reach of the Library's programming.]

While the six lectures were on a variety of themes, it was surprising how there were similar undercurrents throughout several, and occasionally all, of the talks. Race was a key issue in all of the talks in one way or another, owing to the persistent questions about whether Lincoln was a racist throughout his life. Another consistent theme was Lincoln's determined self-improvement: whether learning to be commander in chief, or carefully crafting his messages and speeches, Lincoln was persistent in his attempts to become more capable at his tasks. The most surprising thread through the day was the repeated focus -- and repeated quoting -- of Lincoln's 1854 speech at Peoria, debating Stephen Douglas on the rationale for the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Evidently Lewis Lehrman's recent book, Lincoln at Peoria, is much more influential than I had realized.

A synopsis of the six lectures follows, with highlights of things that piqued my interest in the various talks.

Harold Holzer, co-chair of the Lincoln Bicentennial Commission and author or editor of multiple Lincoln books, led off the symposium with the day's most polished lecture, "Lincoln Comes to Washington: The Journey of a President-Elect." Drawn from his newest monograph, Lincoln President-Elect, Holzer presented a balanced lecture of fact, analysis, and colorful anecdotes. He centered his remarks on an extended look at Lincoln's Farewell Address, given to his neighbors at the train station in Springfield on February 11 when he boarded his train to Washington DC.

In perhaps his most interesting point, Holzer paid particular attention to how Lincoln compares himself to Washington: "Today I leave you; I go to assume a task more difficult than that which devolved upon General Washington." Such a blatant equal comparison to Washington was highly unusual, if not almost impolitic at the time. Holzer carefully showed that it's inclusion in these unplanned remarks was not accidental, given that Lincoln uses variations of the comparison in later speeches along his journey from Springfield to Washington. The larger implications of this dramatic comparison, where Lincoln suggests he might be Washington's equal rather than merely his successor, were left unexplored, owing to time constraints and the otherwise general nature of the enjoyable lecture.

Pulitzer-Prize winning historian James McPherson followed with a talk on "Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief," no doubt drawn from McPherson's recent Lincoln Prize-winner, Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief. McPherson, a noted military historian, explained that Lincoln had four roles as Commander in Chief: 1) to raise and equip the military, 2) to oversee political strategy related to the war, 3) to oversee military strategy, and 4) to oversee operational strategy. Of these, McPherson was most interested in the fourth, which involved Lincoln planning how to implement his general military strategy through battle campaigns (something modern presidents generally leave to the military leaders). Noting that Lincoln was inexperienced and uneducated about the military before becoming president, McPherson noted how his study of military affairs and tactics led to his evolving skills as a military leader.

Given McPherson's obvious interest in Lincoln's unexpected involvement in military operations, it is curious that he spent little energy comparing Lincoln to his Confederate counterpart Jefferson Davis, who was educated at West Point and had served as Secretary of War. At the war's outset, it was thought Davis might actively lead the Confederate Army as a general in the field; still, he was an active commander in chief too, but of a very different model than Lincoln.

William Lee Miller, author of Lincoln's Virtues and President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman offered a reflection of the comparison between Presidents Lincoln and Obama in his lecture "A New Birth of Freedom." Unlike the preceding talks, Miller's was obviously written specifically for the symposium, and included observations from Obama's inauguration and the bicentennial celebration just three weeks before. The talk was filled with examples of Miller's quick wit and sense of irony, as well as his intellectual curiosity. As many others have, he reflected on how Obama's election fulfills the promise of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and his subsequent support for plans to allow black soldiers to vote. He tied this observation to an argument from his latest book about how the Emancipation Proclamation was more significant morally than legally.

After lunch, Lucas Morel, author of Lincoln's Sacred Effort: Defining Religion's Role in American Self-Government, spoke on "Lincoln on Race, Equality, and the Spirit of '76." The talk served as an exploration of Lincoln's views on race, which recently have received a great deal of scrutiny. Unlike some scholars, Morel defended Lincoln's views on race, arguing that they were progressive. In fact, contrary to those who see some of Lincoln's statements on race as proof of racism, Morel argued that "even his most extreme comments" were meant to nudge his racist audience toward accepting a form of natural equality, like the one implied by the Declaration of Independence. To defend this argument, Morel pointed to Lincoln's "hesitancy" when speaking about race throughout his career, which is certainly an interesting approach to Lincoln.

Douglas Wilson, who spent years co-editing the definitive collection of Herndon's interviews, has recently turned his attention to Lincoln the writer. In his talk, "Words Fitly Spoken: Lincoln and Language," Wilson focused on Lincoln the careful re-writer and editor in preparing his speeches, an extension of his recent study, Lincoln's Sword: The Presidency and the Power of Words. Unlike that book, which focuses on the presidential years (and Lincoln's Farewell Address in Springfield), Wilson turned his attention to pre-presidential speeches, but saw the same careful editing from draft to finished product.

Finishing out the day was Elizabeth Leonard, author of Lincoln's Avengers: Justice, Revenge, and Reunion After the Civil War, who spoke on "Ally on the Team of Rivals: Lincoln and His Point Man for Military Justice." Leonard spoke about Joseph Holt, the Kentucky Democrat who became Lincoln's Judge Advocate General in late 1862 and who worked beside Lincoln on issues of pardons in military cases. This was the afternoon's least polished talk, an exploration of Holt's biography, that suggests Leonard is still assimilating her research. While I was unconvinced by her argument -- she twice asked why Holt allied with Lincoln and never gave a satisfying answer -- I was convinced that she could develop a new biography of Holt or a book about the Lincoln/Holt professional relationship.

NY Times Book Review: 1864

This morning, The New York Times published a prominent review of Charles Bracelen Flood's new book on Lincoln, 1864: Lincoln at the Gates of History. Written by one of the Times' best, Janet Maslin, the piece praises the book not only for its well-crafted, compelling narrative, but also, more interestingly, for Flood's instincts to focus on a single year of Lincoln's life.

Click here to read the review.

Comparing 1864 to other recent Lincoln books, Maslin suggests that life-long biographies allow too little depth, while books that focus on specific aspects of Lincoln's life -- his marriage, for example -- offer too little context. Flood's book, with its focus, is implicitly 'just right.' She writes:

But the survey books can be superficial. And the narrow-turf studies can suffer from tunnel vision. Mr. Flood's "1864" compresses the multiple demands upon Lincoln into a tight time frame and thus captures a dizzying, visceral sense of why this single year took such a heavy toll.

I have yet to read Flood's book, but I sense that Maslin is on the money. In some ways, this book on Lincoln may be like Jay Winik's book April 1865. That book served as a corrective on both Civil War studies and Reconstruction studies by focusing intensely on a specific compressed period of time to attempt to really show the pressures on those making key decisions at that time. Similarly, I think Flood's book may do the same thing for Lincoln, really contextualize the pressures -- Maslin suggests 'viscerally' -- within which he formed his decisions. If Flood's book succeeds, it will do so where other books trying to consider this question have been less successful -- like William Lee Miller's President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman, which I previously have reviewed.

Book Review: President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman

President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman

by William Lee Miller
(Alfred A. Knopf, 2008) hardcover, 512 pages

William Lee Miller, who was widely praised for his previous book, Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography, which focused on Lincoln's pre-presidential life, considers the presidential years of Abraham Lincoln in this companion volume, President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman. At the outset, Miller is clear on the study of this book, which "examines the moral performance of Abraham Lincoln in the office of president of the United States" (ix).

To do so, Miller explores the decisions made by Lincoln as president ethically. His moral standard, as evidenced by the opening chapters of the book, is the Constitutional oath of office which Lincoln swore to upon becoming president. However, this moral standard shifts for Miller, as he thinks it did for Lincoln, as Lincoln considers emancipating the slaves, an act which Lincoln himself recognized seemed to go against his responsibilities as laid out by the Constitution. At that point in his study, it becomes less clear what ethical standard Miller uses to judge President Lincoln.

During his presidency, George W. Bush famously remarked that he was "the decider"; in this book, Miller seeks to describe Lincoln's presidency by moving from big decision to big decision. In doing so, Miller focuses almost exclusively on Lincoln's war-related decisions, covering the typical events of Lincoln Civil War biography: Fort Sumter, cries for quick victory, dealing with McClellan, the Trent affair, emancipation and its long-term effects, planning for the post-war reunion of north and south. Lincoln's decisions concerning other issues, such as his far-reaching territorial policy, including the construction of the transcontinental railroad and federal regulations for homesteading and land grant universities are never mentioned. Worse, some key war-related decisions, especially as dealt with the economics of the war, are not considered.

It quickly becomes clear that Miller, despite including a chapter on Lincoln's "big mistake" trying to dispatch the USS Powhatan to help with the situations at either Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens, that he is writing a hagiography of Lincoln. The moral standard Miller seems to use is Lincoln himself. As someone who believes that Lincoln was a man of great integrity, I admit one could choose a worse moral compass. However, the inherent problem with using Lincoln to judge Lincoln is clear in the following example: imagine someone wrote an ethical biography of Richard Nixon's presidency using Nixon's moral standard. And if you've never heard of the USS Powhatan, or thought that it was a mere footnote to history, you'll be amazed at Miller's pointing to it as "show[ing] the president making a big mistake" (72).

It is difficult to find other examples in Miller's analysis of Lincoln making a mistake or making a less than desirable decision. Evidently, Lincoln could virtually do no wrong, especially after learning his lesson from the Powhatan mistake. Such one-sided presentation, even when honoring an acknowledged great leader like Lincoln, reflects poorly on a historian of Miller's stature. This is surprising, given Miller's standing as a scholar, long affiliated with the University of Virginia, and the delicate analysis of Lincoln's Virtues, a book which I very much liked, especially its insightful opening chapters. But regardless of Miller's academic use and citation of sources, the book sadly is not an even-handed treatment of Lincoln.

This is especially evident given the narrative framing within which Miller places his analysis. He opens the book with a brief recounting of the international diplomatic responses to Lincoln's inauguration as president. Kings and queens and emperors sent notes of congratulations to the new ruler of the United States, who had once been a humble uneducated frontier boy. In the international community, Lincoln would now be an equal with these other rulers, and above his name appropriate tributes, salutations, congratulations, and condolences would be sent while he was president. It becomes clear, however, when Miller closes the book with a longer section of the international response to Lincoln's assassination, that he hasn't explained how Lincoln the statesman transformed world opinion about the humble frontier lawyer who became king/president. The only international incident really dealt with in the book concerns the Americans seizing two confederate agents off the British ship HMS Trent early in the war. Exactly how did these foreign people, who sent 837 pages worth of condolences after Lincoln's death, judge Lincoln? Miller's unstated point is that even they could recognize Lincoln's greatness, but his domestic focused account of Lincoln offers no explanation of how they recognized it.

More aggravating to me, but probably not to most readers, regards Miller's obviously intentional, but mostly unstated, answer to a recent book that consciously examined the morality of the Civil War, Harry Stout's Upon the Altar of the Nation: A Moral History of the Civil War (Viking, 2006). Stout's analysis is an epic groundbreaking attempt to consider the ethics of the Civil War, but even for its significance and solid scholarship, it is not without its problems. Miller writes an entire chapter "A Hard War without Hatred" to counter one of Stout's main claims in which he finds the total war waged by the Union under Gens. Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman to be immoral. But Miller does not engage Stout's ideas explicitly in that chapter, but only briefly several chapters before; neither does he divulge the shape of his disagreement in the footnotes of that chapter. This is rather embarrassing for a scholar of Miller's reputation; if he wants to argue with Stout's conclusions, he owes Stout, and his general readership, the courtesy of at least pointing directly to this disagreement -- so deep that it requires an entire chapter -- in the footnotes. And I say this as someone who disagrees with Stout's argument as well.

Some readers will enjoy Miller's book. He has an obvious affinity for Lincoln and he writes extremely well; indeed, it is a pleasant experience to read his writing. But hagiography, regardless how well written, is not to be broadly recommended, particularly among the wealth of Lincoln books.