5 comments about The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics.

1. Abraham Lincoln (1809 --1865) and Frederick Douglass (1818 -- 1895)are American heroes with each exemplifying a unique aspect of the American spirit. In his recent study, "The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics" (2007), Professor James Oakes traces the intersecting careers of both men, pointing out their initial differences and how their goals and visions ultimately converged. Oakes is Graduate School Humanities Professor and Professor of History at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has written extensively on the history of slavery in the Old South.
   
   Oakes reminds the reader of how much Lincoln and Douglass originally shared. Lincoln and Douglass were self-made, self-educated, and ambitious, and each rose to success from humble backgrounds. Douglass, of course, was an escaped slave. Douglass certainly and Lincoln most likely detested slavery from his youngest days. But Lincoln from his young manhood was a consummate politican devoted to compromise, consensus-building, moderation and indirection. Douglass was a reformer who spoke and wrote eloquently and with passion for the abolition of slavery and for equal rights for African Americans.
   
   Much of Oakes's book explores the difficult subject of Lincoln's attitude towards civil rights -- as opposed simply to the ending of slavery -- and of how Lincoln's views developed during the Civil War. Oakes uses Douglass as a foil for Lincoln beginning with the Lincoln -- Stephen Douglas debates in Illinois in 1858. Steven Douglas tried hard to link Lincoln to Frederick Douglass and to abolitionism. He claimed that Lincoln favored equal rights for Negroes and raised the spectre of intermarriage between white women and black men. Portions of Lincoln's responses to Stephen Douglas were almost as distressing, as Lincoln carefully avoided supporting civil equality between the races and stressed instead the evil of slavery and the need to stop its expansion. It is not surprising that Douglass the abolitionist was ambivalent and mistrustful of Lincoln in the early years, doubting his committment to the cause of ending slavery.
   
   Douglass continued to distrust President Lincoln. Douglass found the President too quick to temporize and too slow to act towards freeing the slaves. In widely publicized actions, Lincoln had rebuked two of his generals, Freemont and Hunter, who had tried to take aggressive action to free slaves. Lincoln had acted in order to keep on good terms with the border states whose support he deemed necessary to a successful war effort. But Douglass saw Lincoln's actions as weak and waffling.
   
   Douglass's attitude gradually changed with the Emancipation Proclamation and with three meetings between the two men in 1863, 1864, and 1865. Douglass was won over by the President. Lincoln, for his part, seemed to view Douglass with genuine affection and friendship. Douglass gave masterful orations summarizing Lincoln's accomplishments following Lincoln's assassination, in 1876 at the unveiling of the Emancipation Monument in Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C., and throughout the rest of his life. Lincoln had fought slavery with every means at his command, Douglass came to believe, given the difficult political and military situation with which he had to deal.
   
   Douglass' career moved in an opposite direction from that of Lincoln. He began as a reformer and a follower of the abolitionist William Garrison and he initially shared Garrison's contempt for the American political process. Gradually, Douglass found his own voice, and he became convinced the the United States Constitution did not support slavery. He came to conclude that it was possible to work for change through the political process, and this belief eventually allowed a convergence between him and Lincoln. With the conclusion of the Civil War, Douglass became a party man and a stalwart Republican -- perhaps giving up more than he should have of the passion of his early years. While he ultimately saw the failure of Reconstruction, Douglass remained for the rest of his long life firmly within the American political process.
   
   Oakes does an excellent job of comparing and contrasting the work of Lincoln and Douglass. His accounts of the complex events leading to the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation are particuarly lucid. Oakes argues that Lincoln had surreptitiously delivered the death blow to slavery by the end of 1861. As to Douglass, I learned a great deal from Oakes's discussion of his three autobiographies, written in 1845, 1855, and 1881 (editied, 1891) and of how these works document the change of Douglass from reformer to an instance of the American success story. Oakes also describes well and detail a chilling meeting between Douglass and other African American leaders and President Andrew Johnson in which Douglass unsuccessfully tried to persuade Johnson to extend the right to vote to African Americans.
   
   Oakes has written a readable, informed account of the achievements of two great American leaders. The attitudes which they represent -- the politican and the reformer -- and the issues with which they struggled remain with Americans today.
   
   Robin Friedman



2. Author James Oakes tells us this: in 1860 Frederick Douglass wrote of the upcoming presidential election "I cannot support Lincoln." But in 1888, Douglass said he had met no man "possessing a more godlike nature than did Abraham Lincoln." What had happened?
   
   Oakes gives us a quick glance at his hypothesis within the subtitle of his book: the triumph of antislavery politics. As he explains, this doesn't apply to Lincoln. Lincoln was always an anti-slavery politician, although his thinking on how and how fast slavery should be destroyed changed over time. But with regards to the use of politics as the means to abolish slavery, the man whose thinking moved more was Frederick Douglass. And although the two men share the billing in Oakes' title, this is far more a book about Douglass than Lincoln. It is a book about the evolution of the reasoning of Frederick Douglass.
   
   That evolution, as Oakes paints it, began for Douglass from the belief that the issue of slavery transcended politics and the compromises that came with it. Oakes traces how Douglass the reformer began to be drawn into the political arena, alienating the abolitionists who had first supported his career. But still he carried with him that insistence on absolutism. He brooked no delays, no strategic maneuverings. Lincoln and the Republicans were gradualists, and therefore were deemed irresolute and untrustworthy.
   
   After the Civil War began, Douglass found even more reasons for outrage. Lincoln refused to immediately emancipate the slaves. The President even countermanded the Union generals who issued proclamations freeing the slaves in the territories they conquered. Lincoln had not yet issued a retaliation policy against confederates who captured and often executed southern blacks who had joined the Union army. Oakes gives us deft insights into Lincoln's thinking on all these issues. Douglass, who apparently was not himself an acolyte of consistency, bounced back and forth in his electoral attitudes. But he never let up in his pressure on Lincoln nor in his condemnation of the President's lack of strong steps against slave-holding interests.
   
   Then, first in 1863, Lincoln meets with Douglass. About a year later, at Lincoln's request, they meet a second time and Lincoln asks Douglass to draw up a plan to get as many slaves freed under the Emancipation Proclamation as possible. Over that span Douglass' thinking with regards to Lincoln undergoes a dramatic shift. Afterwards, his criticism of Lincoln essentially stops.
   
   Oakes describes these meetings, including a third just after Lincoln's second inaugural address, in as much detail as consistent with the small format of the book. He relies largely on Douglass' own recollections. Oakes also gives us dramatic retellings of other events in Douglass' career that illustrate the development of his thinking, but also the refinement of his skills as a political strategist.
   
   We are still left wondering what exactly was the effect of those meetings with Lincoln. Was Douglass simply overwhelmed, as others were, by the force of Lincoln's understated humaneness and thereby convinced of the President's genuine concern for blacks? Or did Lincoln persuade Douglass that his political methods were the best possible under the evolving circumstances? Or did Lincoln flatter Douglass into acquiescence, especially in enlisting his help during that second meeting?
   
   These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Oakes in no way downplays the significance of these meetings. But I believe he wants us to see that what happened was entirely consistent with the evolution of Douglass' thinking with regards to politics. As a reformer, he saw it his job to always keep the pressure on. But where and how best to apply that pressure --- that changed in his meetings with Lincoln. And, near the end of Douglass' life, when he raised Lincoln to sainthood, he was still putting the pressure on. But he was using Lincoln's reputation to apply that pressure against the backsliding that the post-Reconstruction era had brought. Douglass had found a way to combine the duties of a reformer with a sophisticated instinct for politics.
   
   "The Radical and the Republican" is not a dramatic retelling of events. It is certainly not a co-biography of its two principals. But it does have drama. That drama comes from taking Douglass' thinking seriously and mapping out its development and growing political sophistication. To do this, it uses comparisons with Lincoln's thinking and the interplay of the two men's principles and actions. But it's not by accident that Douglass comes first in the book's title and its cover. There are many books about Lincoln. This is a book about Frederick Douglass.



3. One of the easiest things to do, especially on the web, is to take a highly regarded leader of the past, say, Abraham Lincoln, pull a few of his quotes or actions out of their historical context, and supposedly "prove" how horrible that leader actually was. In contrast, author James Oakes explains Lincoln to us postmoderns the way an historian should - by reminding us of Lincoln's circumstances and explaining Lincoln's overarching purposes. Oakes does this without resorting to making Lincoln a saint. According to Oakes' compellingly-supported evidence, Lincoln refused to compromise two essential commitments - to antislavery and to the American political system. Lincoln would not compromise his antislavery position to get more votes, nor would he compromise his oaths to uphold the Constitution to undermine slavery. This dual commitment of Lincoln's goes very far in helping us understand why Lincoln limited his goal to preventing the spread of slavery before he became president, why he didn't just go ahead and free all the slaves when he became president, why he moved slowly towards emancipation during the war, etc. Furthermore, the author's discussion of Lincoln's overwhelming desire to change the hearts and minds of Americans about slavery instead of merely forcing through political change regardless of wider support was especially useful. As the "Republican" in the title, Lincoln wanted a government that represented the will of the people; therefore, the will of the people needed to be converted before the government could make radical change. The fact that Lincoln helped accomplish this more widespread change is quite a testament to his legacy of leadership.
   
   The "Radical" in the title is another great American, Frederick Douglass. Unlike Lincoln's, Douglass' reputation typically is not in dispute. Most of us love Douglass, and for good reason. Oakes doesn't tarnish Douglass' reputation, but he does help us to understand how Douglass' singular commitment to antislavery/antiracism, as compared to Lincoln's dual commitment explained above, often put Douglass at odds with the political process AND caused Douglass to speak out so vehemently against politicians like Lincoln. From Douglass' perspective, only immediate emancipation and egalitarianism would serve justice. Thus, by necessity, Douglass would oppose and criticize Lincoln - that is, until the two men met.
   
   One of the reviewers below critiques Oakes for supposedly overstating the relationship between the two men. I believe this critique is misplaced because Oakes never claimed to be writing primarily about the interpersonal relationship between the two. Instead, he's writing about the interplay of the radical ideology of one, and the antislavery politics of the other. Also, I think that Oakes analyzes the relationship between Brown and Douglass comprehensively, not simplistically, as a reviewer below seems to believe.
   
   As a person who teaches history at the college level, and as a person who enjoys reading history for fun, I would recommend this book. I intend to make it one of my required texts for my survey American history course, alongside Frederick Douglass' autobiography.



4. There is a perennial tension in any democracy between those who insist that there must be scrupulous respect for the law, and those who insist that at times a higher law must be followed. Philosophical and moral disagreements separate the two groups. But so does temperament.
   
   James Oates' The Radical and the Republican masterfully witnesses to the crucial role temperament plays in determining which side of the political and moral divide one lands in the higher law debate. Lincoln (the republican) was by nature a man inclined toward moderation, reason, patience, and unemotional analysis. Although always a loather of slavery, it took the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act to put slavery in the middle of his political radar screen. Even then, he insisted that slavery was implicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, and that, short of a constitutional amendment, the most a President or Congress could do was to geographically contain it. Lincoln, who eventually adopted a policy Oates calls "strategic racism"--refusing to speak against the race-baiting so popular in the U.S. in order to make his eventual decision to emancipate the slaves an easier pill to swallow--thought John Brown a madman.
   
   Douglass (the reformer--or better, perhaps, the rebel) had a much more phlegmatic tempermant: emotional, volatile, black-and-white thinking, quick judgments. Although aligned when young with the pacifist Garrisonians, Douglass was never much of a pacifist. But he imbibed the Garrisonian insistence that the Constitution and the government, through their complicity with slavery, were utterly corrupt, and that a higher moral law not only sanctioned but obliged disregard of them when it came to slavery. Douglass, who adopted a policy of black self-reliance which Oates calls "strategic separatism," thought John Brown a hero.
   
   The Civil War created an extraordinary environment, argues Oates, in which Lincoln the republican and Douglass the reformer began to converge. Lincoln dropped his idea of gradual and compensated emancipation by issuing the Emancipation Declaration and lobbying for the passage of the 13th Amendment. Douglass, under the influence of Gerrit Smith, came to see the Constitution as an anti-slavery document and politics as a legitimate method to reforming society. By the time Lincoln was murdered, Douglass had come to greatly admire the man who he mercilessly criticized through much of the war. And Lincoln went out of his way to refer publicly to "my friend" Douglass. Still, their basic temperaments remained quite different, and it's curious to reflect on what their relationship might've evolved into had Lincoln lived.
   
   Oates' discussion of the two men is fascinating, well-written, and well-documented. Strongly recommended not only for those interested in the Civil War but also for anyone interestd in the higher law debate.



5. I am reading this book now and am struck by the evolution of Douglass' ideas about politics. At first, he was angry and rejected all compromise, influenced by radical abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison. Later, he began to see the value of politics and compromise and became a Republican in 1856 when John C Fremont was the nominee of the new party. Douglass accepted the necessity of compromise and a strategy of gradual starvation of the institution of slavery. From rejecting the Constitution as a "slaveowners' document", he became an enthusiastic supporter of the American system and sought citizenship for the freed slaves once the South collapsed, by war or economic forces they could not resist. I wish some Black Liberation advocates would read it. Douglass was a wise man and not as radical as the title suggests. An excellent book. Also a new look at Lincoln although I knew most of the story.

No comments about Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant.

5 comments about Mrs. Lincoln and Mrs. Keckly: The Remarkable Story of the Friendship Between a First Lady and a Former Slave.

1. The characters in this book and their stories are interesting at times, but the author takes far too much time imparting their stories. I am reading this book for a church cirle book review, and I am having trouble reading it. If I want a nap that day, all I need to do is pick up this book and read it a while!



2. I was disappointed in the viewpoint of the author who seemed less interested in the relationship of the two women than in the social problems of a free Black woman who was the confidant of Mary Lincoln. I began reading the book in an attempt to understand both women and the circumstances in which their friendship occurred. The book, however, leans heavily toward Mrs. Keckley & portrays Mrs. Lincoln at her best as a spoiled White woman & at her worst as a lunatic. The final paragraph sums up the author's reasons for writing the book in a complaint that Mary is buried in the Lincoln vault with President Lincoln (where else would she have been put?)& Mrs. Keckley's unclaimed body lies in an unmarked grave..."like those of her mother, slave father and son". The book is not about Mary Lincoln or Mrs. Keckley; it is a social commentary.



3. Going back and forth between biographical chapters of the two ladies for a good portion of the book left me tireless and bored. Almost rejoicing when the book finally picked up after what seemed to be an ad infinitum of the two woman's seemingly ordinary lives, nothing really there to surprise from previous knowledge of both a white and black's reality of that particular time period, I in all honestly could have done without the meticulously detailed first half of the book. On the contrary I did find that the many similarities between the two such as same birth year and rather close birthplace, both in the south to be rather ironic in conjunction with their very different social standing and contrasting, perhaps even a bit complimenting personality traits. This is possibly the only helpful information I was able to take from the first half of the book.
   
   Fleischner does appear to know plenty on each individual, but enough's enough, I picked up the book for an interesting read about such an odd friendship between the pair.
   Forcing myself to get through these lackluster chapters, the meeting and companionship of the two very different women at long last appeared! Before getting to this point of the book I would have been generous in giving the book two stars, however after their first encounter, the day before Abe Lincoln's Presidential inauguration in 1861 I actually found myself enjoying my time reading it.
   
   Keckly, a mulatto, grew up in a harsh life of slavery, eventually independently able to buy her way out and prosper in the seamstress business. Thus being the reason, lavish and somewhat peculiar Lincoln called upon the former slave for her distinguished dress-making skills. The last chapters did seem rushed, and I was left wanting more details on the actual societal aspects of the South in the nineteenth century. I enjoyed the mentioning of how times were back then, always being captivating to me. The prices, fashions, and entertainment of Civil War times really absorbed my interest, however short-lived those parts were. The association and reference of historical people and events i.e. W.E.B Du Bois, Cassius Clay, Bleeding Kansas allowed me to relate the reading to History class, always bringing unexpected excitement to a learning student.
   
   The brilliantly unlikely friendship between Mrs. Keckly and Mrs. Lincoln did get its justice in Jennifer Fleischner's double biography. If you have patience for dullness, and are willing to stick it out for what turns out to be a great story of two apparently opposite woman who grow together in a historic tale of true friendship, then don't hesitate to pick this book up. Three stars for getting two bios for the price of one, the book might have dragged on, but turning out rather compelling, and nicely done.



4. After reading this book I feel as if I know the two ladies, their lives and their times.



5. Excellent historical review. Now have a much better understanding of Mary Todd Lincoln's personality as well as a greater appreciation for the difficulties of slavery that were experienced by Elizabeth Keckly. Both were intelligent women who struggled against the limitations of their culture and upbringing.

5 comments about Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

1. Steers write one of the most accurate and detailed books on the Lincoln assassination. He provides a history of the times when the "black flag" of warfare was raised after the Union's infamous Dahlgren raid that was part of a two prong attack on Richmond. The mission was to free prisoners and disrupt Richmond and allegedly included plans to kill Davis and his cabinet. This controversial raid, As Steers points out, may have raised the ante of warfare without rules as the Confederates start their own controversial plans such as biological warfare that included an attempt to spread yellow fever. Steers starts breaking myths early with the Baltimore controversy where Lincoln switched trains to avoid a real plot to assassinate him as his train passes through Baltimore earlier than scheduled with no sop on his way to his inauguration. Steers documents how surprisingly accessible Lincoln was to the public and how he was relatively poorly protected or at times not at all at his request due to his intuition that anyone could commit the crime regardless of a guard detail. The author provides fascinating detail on Booth and his companions as they initially plot the kidnapping of Lincoln and in failing to do so, turn to assassination as the war is closing and Lincoln's sentiments toward "black human suffrage" raises Booth's ire to an intolerable level. The high points of the book are the well documented associations between Booth with not only his immediate quadrant of conspirators but also with Mary Surratt and a number of Confederate agents in Maryland, D.C. and Virginia. Steers' analysis breaks any myth that Dr. Mud was innocent of aiding and abetting Booth. A recent book offers that Mud may have not recognized Booth when Booth appeared at Mud's home during his escape but that seems circumspect since Mud met Booth several times before and Booth was a relatively famous actor. The manhunt for Booth is covered in great detail and it is extraordinary fascinating as Booth escapes to Virginia with the help of established agents. Steers describes the temporary haven that Booth and Herold finally reach outside of Bowling Green at the Garrett farm but Stanton's dragnet discovers Booth's trail in Virginia. Although quite by accident, that accident puts them amazingly right on the trail of Booth at Port Royal, Virginia just west of Fredericksburg and a handful of miles from Booth's quiet and seemingly safe haven. As Steers notes, there is some interesting speculation as to why the three Confederates, who provide Booth assistance to his temporary haven, suddenly turn up to offer assistance at Port Royal. The author also presents excellent bios on the men involved in the conspiracies; the incompetent George Atzerodt who not only abstains from killing Andrew Johnson at the last minute but leaves evidence and a relatively easy trail to follow; Lewis Powell, the mysterious young veteran soldier who wounds virtually the entire Seward family in his attempt to kill the Secretary of State and goes stoically to the hangman; and young David Herold who deserts Powell but is Booth's guide in his escape through Maryland and into Virginia. Along with these prime conspirators, Steers brings in Booth's early associates that also get captured in the dragnet even though they withdrew from Booth's later plans. And finally Steer's aptly dismembers the theories that Booth escaped and that an imposter was buried in his name. Steer's even tells of an odd character that drags a corpse around for years eerily claiming it is Booth in an attempt for notoriety and money. The final chapter covers Lincoln's long funeral train trip that stopped at several large cities on his long trek back to Springfield, allowing a large population to view Lincoln's open casket. As the author notes, Lincoln returned to his hometown as he inferred when he left, that he might not return with the ability to enjoy his homecoming.



2. Last year, I visited the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library & Musuem in Springfield, Illinois. At the Musuem, they had a temporary exhibit called "Blood on the Moon". It was a fascinatating exhibit and when I saw that the exhibit's name was taken from a book, I started looking for the book to go slightly more in-depth about the assassination. The book is pretty good. The beginning is good and I liked all the photos that were included in the book. But there are two reasons why I couldn't give this book 5 stars: there were parts that I had a hard time keeping myself interested in. A slight bit of dry reading. The second reason is the author's repeated repeatings of somethings in the book. I'm not quite sure if the author forgot that he had already mentioned those facts or perhaps is underestimating the readers intelligence in remembering what they've read but I was annoyed that some things that I had already read kept popping up. I prefered the parts of the book when the author wasn't just reeling off facts and put things into action. The story of the assassination was fascinating and I liked how the author included maps of all the various Booth getaways. I also found the information about Lincoln's final trip back to Springfield very interesting.
   
   So I wouldn't say this would be a book for anyone who is more interesting in maybe the story-telling aspect of this part of history since the telling of fact upon fact might bore some people slightly. But I would recommend this to anyone who is interested in learning about the Lincoln assassination and especially anyone who was lucky enough to see the Blood on the Moon exhibit at the Abraham Lincoln Musuem.



3. Edward Steers wrote one of the best accounts of Lincoln Assassination in recent history. Although his writing style is bit dry as many reviewers in the past have noted, his research is untouchable and this is a very readable account to anyone who have any interest in this subject. The author laid everyone and everything out in a clear and understandable matter. He take a careful reading to all who was involved, their backgrounds and the roles they played during the war. He also take study to Lincoln's own lackluster desire for security and how that encouraged men like Booth to take him on. Lincoln didn't realized that perception of protection can deter an assassination then the actual protection itself. The author take the efforts to debunked many myths and self-serving stories surrounding Lincoln assassination plot including if the real John W. Booth was really died on the porch of the Garrett house. The author also explained the legal definitation of the case and how it may be applied even in modern era.
   
   One of the great services of the book comes surrounding the role Dr. Samuel Mudd played. The author made it loud and clear that Mudd was clearly guility of the role he played and richly deserves his life sentence although he only served four years before being pardoned. Dr. Mudd is definitely not an innocent bystander and he was deep into the plot to assassinate Lincoln. Most of Mudd's guilt ironically come from Mudd himself which is a testament to the author's research. Mary Surratt's role was also clearly pointed out. Whether she deserves to hang or not is up to the moralists but she was definitely guility as Mudd.
   
   If I had a singular gripe, I would have to say that the author could have included the very last photographs of Lincoln taken on 10 April 1865 (by Alexander Gardner), the one which have him smiling would have been a better choice then his Nov 1863 photo on the cover of the book or Lincoln's Springfield photo since the author states quite often in his narrative how happy Lincoln seem to be during his last days.
   
   I would regard this book as a mandatory reading material for anyone interested in the Lincoln's assassination story. Although it little dry but still readable, superbly research and highly informative.



4. Without a doubt this is the most accurate accounting of Mr. Booth and Mr. Lincoln leading up to and after April 14th, 1865. Ed Steers, Jr. did his research well and has the talent to present the story in an enjoyable fashion. The final page tells it all. A must read.



5. this is , in my opinion, the definative book on the lincoln assassination, and the escape of john wilkes booth. not only does the author give a clear and concise accounting, he takes us out of the vacuum and explains the minute details of the very knotted relationships between the conspirators, and the links of the confederate underground to canada and back. there is no mistaking the intention of any one of the people involved. he also establishes the money trail that funded booth. im surprised that more people were not prosecuted. it doesnt let anyone off the hook.

4 comments about The Long Pursuit: Abraham Lincoln's Thirty-Year Struggle with Stephen Douglas for the Heart and Soul of America.

1. Abraham Lincoln is probably the most famous past president in our history, with the possible exception of George Washington. Lincoln was a great man, but most people don't remember that for much of his life, he was largely a political failure, if a principled one. The chief reason for this was a political rival, a Democrat named Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas was a powerhouse in the Senate for a quarter century, forging compromises and legislation, arguing the cause of compromise with the South so that discord didn't destroy his party and country. Douglas and Lincoln met in debate repeatedly, and were rivals in Illinois politics for a considerable time.
   
   While they were rivals, they were also at least cordial, if not outright friends. Finally, in 1857, Lincoln was nominated for the Senate seat Douglas held, and the two met in a series of debates. Douglas won the election, but had to say things in the debates that alienated the South, while Lincoln managed to engage, even energize the Republican sentiment in much of the country with his side in the debates. Within two years, Douglas was a weak candidate for president, fatally wounded by a rival Democrat nominated by the Southern Democratic party, and so Lincoln triumphed in the presidential election in 1860.
   
   The story of all of this is very well-recounted in this book by Roy Morris Jr. Morris is careful to give Douglas his due. Frankly, Stephen A. Douglas should be a better-known figure in American politics. When Lincoln won the presidency in 1860, Douglas, in spite of the animosity that had permeated the election, immediately endorsed Lincoln, and castigated the South for their threats to secede. This sort of politics is today very unusual, and you wonder whether anyone today thinks they could learn from the past.
   
   I really enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in Lincoln or the 19th Century.



2. It is a common observation that we are shaped, morally and intellectually, by the people we choose as friends. As demonstrated by this book, we may be shaped even more dramatically by our enemies and competitors.
   
   Abraham Lincoln was such an amazing president that we often forget how difficult was his climb from obscurity. As Roy Morris makes clear, Stephen Douglas was essential to Lincoln's training. The competition between these two men brought out the best in Lincoln, and forced him to refine his political skills and ideas. In particular, it forced Lincoln to define a moral yet measured approach to limiting the scope of slavery in the territories, with the hope of sending the institution to its ultimate extinction.
   
   My main surprise was Morris' limited treatment of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. However, he makes up for that deficiency with many insights into related issues, such as Douglas' struggles within the Democratic Party at the time of the 1860 presidential election.
   
   Morris weaves into his narrative many interesting opinions and suppositions about Lincoln's subjective reactions to the events swirling around him. However, at times Morris seems to get carried away, and projects onto Lincoln opinions that are inconsistent with the historical record. For example, he makes a passing reference to the "notably irreligious Lincoln," which is hard to reconcile with Lincoln's profound religious beliefs, reflected in his many speeches and letters, and culminating in his powerful Second Inaugural address. (See e.g. White, Lincoln's Greatest Speech)



3. Coming, as I do, from the Land of Lincoln, new books on our 16th president are always of interest. Rarely do they seem to take a new tack on an old story. Though some are better written than others, many seem to cover the same ground. Morris, however, does something interesting in his book, The Long Pursuit. He gives us a look at Lincoln through the long-standing relationship/rivalry between Lincoln and the other important Illinois politician of the time, Stephen Douglas.
   
   In fact, if the truth be told, Douglas was the more important of the two figures right up to the point that Lincoln won the presidency in 1860. Throughout the 1850's, Douglas was the powerhouse Democratic senator from Illinois and perennial candidate for president while Lincoln remained, if not an unknown, certainly a small-time, provincial politician. It was, of course, his series of debates with Douglas and the resulting fallout during the senate election of 1858 that finally took Lincoln to national prominence and gave him his shot at the presidency two years later.
   
   In some ways, it is too bad that Douglas has been all but forgotten except as Lincoln's foil in those all important debates. (Can you tell I'm from one of the cities in which those debates took place?) Considering his impact during those antebellum years, Douglas deserves better. And, to his credit, Morris does him justice here. We are offered plenty of fair insight into Douglas's character here and how he tried to navigate his way through difficult times while being a powerful leader. In many ways, I feel I know Stephen Douglas much better from reading this book.
   
   Still, this is Lincoln's story. And it is Lincoln's story under a spotlight focused on a very particular period of time. We get very little of Lincoln's youth, now well-passed into legend. The story really picks up with Lincoln's arrival at New Salem, Illinois, as a young man, soon to enter political life. It follows Lincoln through his ups and downs in Illinois, his encounters with Douglas (including details on those all important debates), his positioning as the Republican candidate for president, his improbable yet inevitable election, and finishing up with his swearing in as president. Nothing is mentioned of his years in the White House. Which is just what this book needs as it tells a different story. Within months of Lincoln's swearing in, Douglas was dead.
   
   In the end, this is an excellent book. In a well-ploughed field of history, it is unique. Not only that, it is well-written and informative about a period of Lincoln's life that is less well-known and brings back to life Stephen Douglas--a man who, but for some twists of fate, could be as well-remembered as Lincoln (if not as well-respected, perhaps). For anyone interested in Lincoln's life, this is a book that should be read.



4. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas were the two preeminent Illinois politicians of the pre-Civil War era, and their debates are an important part of American political history. On the eve of the 150th anniversary of these debates comes the release of "The Long Pursuit," which chronicles the complicated political relationship of these men far beyond these famous debates. I'm a neophyte to Lincoln history, so I approached this book with some trepidation. Fortunately, the book is well-written and straight-forward enough that I was able to follow along without knowing a great deal of Lincoln history.
   
   The average person knows Douglas mostly through his debates with Lincoln, and Roy Morris Jr. notes with irony that most people think that Douglas lost the political race in which the debates occurred. Instead, Douglas won the Illinois Senate race against Lincoln; he was considered a star in politics, whereas Lincoln remained essentially a relatively obscure country lawyer. When Douglas became an obvious Democratic nominee for the Presidency, these debates actually ended up helping Lincoln, as his supporters in the Republican Party could argue that Lincoln knew Douglas and his debating style so well that he could match up well with Dougles, despite the earlier loss. Fortunately for Lincoln, his stance against the spread of slavery into new territories gained greater acceptance in the North than did Douglas' appeasement approach, and he managed to spring to the Presidency over the better known Douglas (helped by the entry into the race of several third party candidates).
   
   Indeed, throughout his early career, Lincoln seemed to be inexorably tethered to Douglas, although history obviously has dimmed the reputation of Douglas, who was known as the Little Giant in his day. "The Long Pursuit" is interesting reading, and the material is certainly timely given the anniversary of their famous debates. Roy Morris Jr. does a good job placing their relationship in historical context and including enough interesting stories to keep this Lincoln newbie interested. I was a bit disappointed that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were not covered in greater detail; however, that simply may have been beyond the scope of this book, and that material does seem to be covered in many other texts. What this book did do is whet my appetite for more information and to seek out other books on the topic.

2 comments about Commander in Chief: Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War.

1. For the first time, I came to know Lincoln not as an iconified hero, but as a funny, direct, engaging and committed human being as I read this book. The author has thorough notes of very detailed research and tells a story that others omitted or overlooked. It made me want to read much more about Lincoln, especially more of the piercing wit and emotional perseverance shared in this book.



2. A Marrin is a wonderful author. He makes history come alive. He writes in an interesting manner and doesn't have a lot of excess verbage. I have several of his books and have enjoyed each one of them.

2 comments about The Garden and Farm Books of Thomas Jefferson.

1. Forget About Other Organic Gardening Books! This collection of books and writings by Thomas Jefferson includes decades of his farm records and gardening notes from back when they didn't even have chemical fertilizers, herbiscides, and insecticides yet. He experimented with a huge variety of fruits, vegetables, and fiber plants (including hemp) that he imported from all over the world. He also kept complete ledgers of his slaves, chronicling their births and deaths. He kept records of their production and consumption of linen, wool, blankets, clothing, etcetera. This book is a gold mine of history, gardening tips, livestock records, diary tidbits, photos, diagrams and more.



2. If there were a ten star rating, I would give it to this book! If only all of our Presidents were so committed to the values of home and garden.

   This is a wonderful book, both for Jefferson fans and gardeners. Since I'm both, it is doubly wonderful. You can read Jefferson's records of what he planted when, his observations about all sorts of garden topics, his letters to friends and family about gardening, and see the voluminous records he kept about all things horticultural.

5 comments about 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War They Failed to See.

1. "1858" is a solid overview of a pivotal year in the run-up to the Civil War. Certainly, this is not an exhaustive treatment, and, as other reviewers have suggested, more in-depth analysis of the year's key personalities and events can be found elsewhere. I agree with previous comments critical of the subtitle. In particular, Grant makes a few fleeting cameos in the narrative, while lengthy chapters are devoted to Seward, Douglas, Sherman and John Brown, all of whom are absent from the subtitle. The book's primary antagonist also escapes mention: James Buchanan. Frequently ranked by historians as our worst president, the flawed and inept Buchanan chose to feud with friends and rivals within his own party and engage in fanciful foreign policy pursuits (like trying to purchase proslavery Cuba) rather than confront the deepening divisions over slavery.
   
   Clearly, this book aims at a mass-market audience. Scholars and aficionados of the period will be disappointed. On the other hand, Average Joe readers like myself will find new information and fresh insights. For example, the friendship between the firebrand abolitionist Seward and the rabidly proslavery Jefferson Davis, or how Buchanan's meddling cost Stephen Douglas the popular vote to Lincoln in their Senate contest, providing Lincoln with the rationale for his subsequent Presidential bid. The anecdote about the slave rescuers in Oberlin, OH was also new to me. For the general reader, "1858" is time well spent.



2. Why 1858? I found myself asking that question repeatedly the entire time I was reading this book. What made 1858 THE year to look at in regards to the coming of the Civil War. Author Bruce Chadwick tries (largely unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to argue that 1858 was the year slavery became THE main issue facing the United States and events which occurred in 1858 played a large role in bringing about the war. In his Foreword, Chadwick tells the reader he will attempt to accomplish this by weaving together seven stories of people and events, linking these disparate stories together with looks into James Buchanan's "spectacular failure" as President.
   
   1858 weaves together seven stories all (loosely) tied together by Buchanan's Presidency. These stories are, in no particular order:
   
   1. Jefferson Davis
   2. Robert E. Lee
   3. William T. Sherman
   4. The Oberlin-Wellington Slave Rescue
   5. William H. Seward
   6. John Brown
   7. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates
   
   At first, I was intrigued by the author's decision to abandon a traditional narrative and use what I thought would be an interesting change of pace. The idea works better in theory than in the pages of 1858, however. Stories are broken up into different chapters with little regard for continuity or chronological order. For readers new to the subject, this may very well be misleading as far as a time line of these events goes.
   
   As I stated in my introduction, my main and overriding question while reading the entire book was "Why 1858? What makes this year so special?" Unfortunately, although the author does claim he chose 1858 because it was THE year slavery became the overriding issue facing the United States, he doesn't give nearly enough reason WHY, and thus doesn't really answer my question. In essence, he argues FOR 1858, but he really gives no arguments AGAINST other years. To me, slavery had been THE issue for quite some time. A post concerning the Compromise of 1850 at Elektratig shows that slavery was very much at the forefront of the country's concerns as the 1850s opened, and that the Civil War may well have started a decade earlier had the Compromise of 1850 not happened. I can agree with the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Oberlin-Wellington Slave rescue as two MAJOR events involving slavery and an acceleration towards war. However, other events outside of this year, especially John Brown's Harpers Ferry Raid in 1859 and obviously the Presidential Election of 1860 were major events which did much to hasten the Civil War. Chadwick does argue that the seeds were sewn for these events in 1858. He stresses that John Brown's raid into Missouri and successful escape with slaves into Canada in 1858 and the Lincoln-Douglas debates led to these other events. That may be true, but the MAIN events happened in years other than 1858. Without belaboring the point too much, I believe you simply cannot make a strong case that 1858 was any more important than many other years in causing the Civil War or having slavery become THE issue facing the country. Chadwick's failure too largely explain WHY or argue against other years only drives home the point for me.
   
   To me, deciding to include William T. Sherman was an odd choice other than to allow the author/publisher to get Ulysses S. Grant's name into the subtitle of the book. Grant is barely mentioned, and Sherman had hardly anything to do with the author's assertion that 1858 was the year slavery became the most important issue in the country. The only reason I can see to include Sherman is to show an example of a Northerner who had no strong feelings towards slavery, much like Robert E. Lee was personally opposed to slavery as a Southerner. In reading the chapters covering Sherman, I was puzzled as to what purpose his antebellum life story served to the narrative as a whole.
   
   The subtitle of the book is especially puzzling to me. U.S. Grant is listed and he is barely mentioned in the book, pretty much only in relation to the Sherman portion of the story. Putting a famous figure into your title or subtitle only to barely mention them isn't going to win points with this reviewer. Another issue I have with the subtitle is "The War They Failed to See." Huh? Lincoln's "House Divided" speech is mentioned. So is Jefferson Davis' ascension in late 1858 as the leader of the Secession Movement. John Brown not only saw war coming, he was determined to start it himself! And lastly, Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict" speech is also stressed. It seems to me these men at least had an inkling that war was at the very least very possible if not imminent if some drastic steps were not taken with regards to slavery. I don't want to pin this on the author at all. Marketing sells books, and the subtitle screams MARKETING from a tall building. Blame the publisher here folks.
   
   If you have lasted this long, you might believe I hated 1858. This is definitely not so. My policy is to get the bad out of the way first and move on to the good. Let's start with the author's style. Bruce Chadwick is definitely a good storyteller. Despite some continuity issues in his narrative choice as mentioned earlier, I read this 300 page book in only two sittings. I could not put it down.
   
   Chadwick's chapters on the gross ineptitude of James Buchanan's Presidency were my favorite portions of the book. Rather than focus on the slavery issue and try to resolve it in some way, Buchanan instead completely ignored slavery when possible and blinded himself to the enormity of the problem the rest of the time. His "Don Quixote-ish schemes", as Chadwick calls them, to annex portions of Central and South America by any means possible while ignoring slavery was just one issue. In addition, Buchanan chose to fight petty feuds with two powerful men, Senator Stephen Douglas and newspaper editor John Forney, and these feuds were disastrous for the Democratic party in the elections of 1858 and the Presidential election of 1860. More than any other man, Buchanan had the power to slow or even prevent radical developments with regards to the slavery situation. Instead, says Chadwick, he did nothing while radicals on both sides led the nation to the brink of war.
   
   I was also pleasantly surprised with the bibliography and notes. Chadwick uses a nice number of endnotes, including 747 in exactly 300 pages of text. He did use quite a few secondary sources, but for what was obviously to me a "pop history" book aimed more at the masses than to deep readers, Chadwick also looked at the papers of many of those involved in the events of the year 1858 and around 90 newspapers published at the time. A serviceable index rounds out the book.
   
   Bruce Chadwick's 1858 sets out to prove that year was the year slavery became THE issue in the United States, but was rather unsuccessful in this regard. His arguments for 1858 as the year were sparse and his arguments against other years were non-existent. The story's continuity suffered somewhat as a result of some conscious choices on the author's part. Despite these flaws, 1858 is an enjoyable read aimed at the masses which I would be happy to recommend to readers new to the subject. Deep readers will find this material covered elsewhere in much greater detail.



3. Reads like a novel, but its pure history and gives a perspective on the Civil War which has been lacking. The war wasn't about slavery in the south, but more so about slavery in the new states of the west....



4. I have to admit that I can't quite place this book. I would say on the one hand I was disappointed because while it did a good job of portraying the year 1858 it could have just as easily been 1856 or 1860, both of which would have been more interesting. The book spent a lot of time focusing on personal rivalries to the detriment of painting the national picture. Also certain figures who would rise to prominence in the Civil War were given great exposure yet others were barely mentioned. (Like Grant)
   
   So all in all if you like the period, there are worse reads out there but I still think that James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom does a much better job at portraying the period.



5. 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and The War They Failed to See, Bruce Chadwick , Sourcebooks Inc., 355 pp., notes, bibliography, index, 2008, $24.95
   
   1858 offers clear and concise descriptions of key political and social events that shoved the states into rebellion and resistance. Adventurous and even compelling at times, 1858 moves the reader through twelve months of political and social turmoil. Chadwick explores not the mundane but the exceptional.
   
   Not familiar to most Civil War readers is Jefferson Davis' 1858 visit to Maine in order to recuperate from herpes and build a coalition of Northern Democrats in a bid to establish a presidential candidacy in 1860. The Southern press pilloried him to the point that when he returned he retracted his statements. Ironically, these retractions put him into a position where he would be offered a presidency in 1861, that of the Confederate States of America.
   
   In one six page chapter, Chadwick offers a cogent and balanced description of the Dred Scott Decision, one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court event in U.S. history. His ability to put into place the origins, personalities, issues, and outcomes of this event is exceptional. As a Advance Placement U.S. History test reader, CWL reflected that this chapter would be a fine contribution to student resources.
   
   Though CWL is quite familiar with the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Ohio Rescue and John Brown's escape with slaves from Missouri to Canada, Chadwick offers the essentials in a manner that captures the excitement and underscores their place in bringing the states to the brink of rebellion in 1860. After reading 1858, Civil War buffs may have a new appreciation for the events leading to the Secession Winter of 1860-1861. Some readers may need to keep in mind that all soldiers in the ranks had lived through and had argued over the events of 1858.
   
   Though a Pennsylvanian, CWL has not be able to work up any enthusiasm for James Buchanan, 15th president of the United States. Chadwick's 1858 covers the Buchanan presidency in nine chapters that fall between chapters on Davis, Lee, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Rescue, Seward's Irrepressible Conflict speech, and John Brown's rescue of slaves from Missouri. Read consecutively the Buchanan White House chapters make the case for this Northern Democrat holding Southern Democrats' interest higher than his own section and possibly allowing the conflict to become truly irrepressible.
   
   Some quibbles: The subtitle is unclear; nine of 17 chapters deal with the Buchanan White House, two deal with Lincoln and Douglas, and single chapters deal with Lee, Davis, Seward, Sherman, The Dred Scott Decision, John Brown's Raid on Missouri and the Slaveholder's raid on Nicaragua. Mysteriously, U.S. Grant is mentioned only on four pages in the book but is in the subtitle. Buchanan has nine chapters but has no mention in the title at all.
   
   CWL suggests that the subtitle be changed for the paperback edition: 1858--The Year the Civil War Became Inevitable for Davis, Lee, Douglas, Lincoln, Seward, Sherman and John Brown. Or 1858--Blood Before The Civil War's Dawn: The Men Who Pulled the Trigger on the War.
   
   Chadwick assumes the reader has no detailed understanding of the period; 1858 is written for the general audience. For the paperback edition, a chronology for the year should be added as well as a brief chronology of the 1846-1860 era. A list of characters would also be helpful for the general audience. Also, the index needs some attention. The entry--Forney, John--lists 6 pages with three subtopics. John Forney has a whole chapter, Number Nine, pages 135-140 but these pages are not listed under the entry--Forney, John--in the index. Some proofreading needs to be done. Notes 159, 160 and 161 are the same font size as the text font; these note number should be the superscript font size, just like the other 744 notes.

No comments about Grant's Lieutenants: From Chattanooga to Appomattox (Modern War Studies).

2 comments about Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass An American Slave (Barnes & Noble Classics Series) (Barnes & Noble Classics).

1. Frederick Douglass wrote this while still a relatively young man, recently escaped from slavery. He is extremely articulate; especially for someone self-educated. This is the story of his life as a slave up until the time he escaped and became an abolitionist. He later wrote a couple of other autobiographies, but this is the one that packs the most wallop.
   
   His observations of the degrading effects on slavery, both on the slaves and the owners were very fascinating. His description of the change he saw in one of his mistresses from a kindly new slaveholder to a typical cruel slave owner highlighted what evil an institution slavery is. It made me grateful not only that I'm not a slave, but more so not a slaveholder.
   
   It was also interesting to see how his religious masters were much crueler than the non-religious owners were. It shows how if a "moral" institution justifies an immoral practice, its practitioners lose all sense of guilt and act accordingly.
   
   The methods the owners used to keep the slaves ignorant and debased was another disgusting practice. It seemed to work at keeping them from revolt, but at what cost?
   
   I highly recommend this book for everyone. The lessons it teaches about human nature are things we all need to be reminded of.



2. It's simply amazing that a man such as Frederick Douglass could rise up from the bowels of slavery and make such an impact on American history. And the fact that he allegedly educated himself and became an outspoken leader/advocate in the abolitionist movement, while becoming one of the leading intellectuals in the 19th century would indeed be miraculous if it didn't seem so fallacious.
   
   But what I'm about to state will disturb many people, and for that I'm deeply sorry. However, I feel Douglass' autobiography and how he managed to educate himself with little or no help then escaping to freedom is unmitigated hyperbole.
   Also, the fact that Douglass downplays Harriet Tubman's Underground Rail Road as something unfeasible and the fact that Douglass doesn't reveal any information on how he escaped made this book seem extremely far-fetched if not fanciful.
   Unfortunately, this narrative seems like a work of fiction that was written by a 19th century white person trying to capture the essence of the black experience. (In other words this narrative would make a pretty good TV movie of the week.)
   
   And Of course, many people will make the accusation that what I'm conveying are racist sentiments, but that simply isn't the case. There were an abundance of capable Blacks in the 19th century that could and did accomplish what Douglass achieved ten-fold.
   So, with that said, I emphatically feel that he should've been professional and intellectually forthright with his tale. It would have been intriguing to envisage his perilous journey to freedom.
   By leaving the readers in utter limbo on how he made his trek to freedom when he simply could have given realistic details of what transpired during his escape without revealing accomplices would have made his story more palatable.
   
   But overall, what I think everyone should ascertain from this autobiography is the iniquitous brutality of slavery and the impact it had on America as a society then and now, and we must all muster enough strength to love and respect one-another so someday we'll overcome adversities in our sacred land.
   So to sum up; even though I found this book far-fetched at times I still consider Frederick Douglass to be one of the greatest Americans of all time.
   A must read for the learning experience insofar as reaching understanding even though this autobiography reads like a work of fiction.