5 comments about Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.

1. This is a brilliant account of Abraham Lincoln, his cabinet, and their times. It is commodious in scope, unfailingly insightful, lucid, poignant, and engaging. Washington excelled in courage and honour; Lincoln added honesty, humility, humor, and wisdom.



2. With great writing and fabulous storytelling, Goodwin takes us deep into the inner workings of President Abraham Lincoln's cabinet during the Civil War and into the minds and lives of the key players. This is not another Lincoln biography or a history about the Civil War battles or generals, although we do meet and get a greater appreciation of the good and bad generals -- Grant and Sherman vs. McClellan -- and focus on Lincoln's leadership skills and style. In some ways, you could say this extremely engaging read is a biography of a particular institution -- Lincoln's cabinet and its members -- at the key moment when America's peculiar institution of slavery is being fought over. However, I am glad that I read Shelby Foote's three-volume narrative history of the Civil War before Goodwin's book so that I had the biggest picture first.



3. His assassination and coronation at such an early age both preserved the mystique and obscured the mystery that surrounded Abraham Lincoln and made him one of the the best-documented men in history. Lincoln has been mythologized beyond criticism or comparison in the historical lexicon. This book brings him back from mythology and puts him into his proper political realm so that he can be criticized and compared to other mortals, whereupon you realize how far beyond criticism and comparison Lincoln is when it came to his political and personal leadership.
   
   Goodwin's Abraham Lincoln is a political leader and wise human being beyond any other, perhaps even Solomon himself. Of the people whom history has documented thoroughly enough to compare, he may be the greatest human being ever in terms of communicating, understanding, empathizing , and motivating others.
   
   Why does every leader since pale by comparison? Is there never to be another Lincoln? Part of the problem is that in Lincoln's time, one man could still control most of his environment. Lincoln created ways to work, study, and think that allowed him to apply his knowledge and wisdom to the problems he faced and come up with the best solutions. The realm of control is much smaller today.
   
   Part of the problem is the pervasiveness and immediacy of communication (the media), part of it is the complexity of the environments, and part of it is the complexity of the problems.
   
   Even a leader of Lincolnian proportions would not be as successful as Lincoln in today's world. Of leaders since then who approached that power on the world stage: FDR, Reagan, Castro, maybe Papa Doc Duvalier--on a small island scale, a lesser man can loom larger, and without a great ethical compass, accomplish much for the wrong purpose!
   
   One great example of Lincoln's abilities: with conservative cabinet member Seward's resignation on his desk because of accusations from liberal Senators (based on inside information from liberal cabinet member Chase), Lincoln agreed to meet with the Senators alone at the White House. After hearing their complaints in a long meeting and promising to think on it, the next day Lincoln called all the cabinet together except Seward, told them about the meeting and told them to come to the White House that night to meet with the Senators, knowing that as a group the cabinet would defend its own against charges from outsiders.
   
   Chase, who had provided the information to the Senators, especially charges that the cabinet was seriously divided and uninvolved in presidential decision-making, was in a panic throughout the meeting when the cabinet members did indeed defend Seward and Lincoln and present a united front during a long 5-hour session with the Senators.
   
   The next morning, Chase came to the White House to submit his resignation to Lincoln because of his mortification in front of the Senatorial delegation (when the delegation was discussing afterward how Chase could have painted such an incorrect story of the cabinet unity and involvement, one Senator remarked dryly "He lied."). When Chase pulled the paper from his pocket, Lincoln eagerly grabbed it and read it with a smile on his face. "This unties the Gordian knot," he exclaimed, as he recognized that Chase had just given him the answer to his dilemma. He wrote out a letter to both Chase and Seward, rejecting both resignations, thus keeping his cabinet and the warring Republican party united.
   
   This example is multiplied many times by Goodwin throughout the book, highlighted each time by Lincoln's quiet confidence in his ability, his moral authority, and his political authority. His self-assurance was reflected in the way he always accepted other's ideas (and gave credit) when better than his, seldom held grudges, and never paid back ill for ill, a trait that paid off many times in his political career, as those he could have made enemies became valuable compatriots in the war for the Union.
   
   How could a man with such humble beginnings, with so little formal education, who was basically a minimum-wage day laborer until the age of 25, when he learned the law on his own and began a faltering political career--how could this man harbor such ability and confident expectation of success?
   
   It is easy enough to say it stems from his determination, after a bout of suicidal depression in his mid-20s when the first love of his life died, that he did not want to die until he had made a mark on the world. A noble and worthy determination to be sure, and one made--and forgotten--by many of us, as time, ability, and circumstance leave us satisfied with some lower place. But 20 years later in the White House, while talking with his best friend from that earlier time, Lincoln reminded his friend of that pledge and acknowledged his readiness to die now that he had met it. Lincoln had not forgotten his pledge, and had fully intended and expected to meet it as he did! What gave him this ability to satisfy his fully expectant confidence?
   
   One can say it is God's hand of providence working in human history to preserve the United States. That may be the most likely driver, but why through this gangling "great ape" who was mocked and denigrated until met in political or personal arenas where he quietly and gracefully managed every relationship for the best of all parties? Was Abraham Lincoln a committed Christian? Not by most standards of orthodoxy, although he knew the Bible from hours of study, and not in comparison to Chase, whose studied religiosity was belied by his shady financial dealings and unethical manipulation of others.
   
   Regardless, with war in Iraq and economic gloom descending over most of the world, God's providence in the placement of a humble servant leader like Lincoln would surely be welcome.



4. There is no other word for it, this book is brilliant. Coming into it, I thought I knew a fair amount about Lincoln and workings of the war. However, the way the author depicts Lincoln and his cabinet is incredible. There is such depth, honesty, and intricacy to it. Although there is not a lot of background info on the war itself, that, for the most part, is not missed. The book focuses on Lincoln and his cabinet, and how he, in his own political genius, pulled together varying factions of the new Republian party to solve the crises facing the country. It's a fascinating insight into one of the great political and moral minds of history. It is not to be missed.



5. This is one of those books that, when you are finished, you need a few minutes to sit and let it all sink in. It is a powerful, wonderful, insightful book that I was almost sorry to finish, for multiple reasons -- it was engrossing, and of course it didn't end well.
   
   Goodwin does an excellent job of bringing Lincoln to life and showing his incredible talents for managing people. I had some knowledge about Lincoln, but when I finished this book, I was left with a feeling of sadness, not only for him and his friends and family, but for the country, because we were deprived of four years of Lincoln's leadership. And who knows how things would have turned out in the South and the country as a whole had he been able to preside over the infant stages of Reconstruction.
   
   The relationship between Lincoln and Seward was a pleasure to learn about, as well as the way Lincoln dealt with the various personalities around him without creating personal enemies. Reading about his interactions with Frederick Douglass was also a special part of the book.
   
   While this book may be long (about 750 pages) for those with only a casual interest in history, I would still recommend it to anyone. It is a remarkable book about a remarkable man.

5 comments about John Adams.

1. I had heard about this book on NPR when they did an interview with the author. It sounded fantastic but I normally do not read biographies so I didn't bother with it. THEN I got my Kindle and remembered the NPR interview and thought WHY NOT? reading it on my Kindle is not going to break my hands (It's 762 pages long)! I quickly downloaded it and dove in.
   
   What a surprise. This book is well-researched and correlated to present a side of the formation of our nation/government and several well-known historical characters that I previously never knew. Adam's own letters and those written to him by others, including his beloved with Abigal, show real-time action and opinions as things happened. I saw a side of Jefferson I never knew existed and the characterization of Benjamin Franklin makes one wonder how either of them would get on in politics today.
   
   The one thing I learned was the more things change, the more they stay the same, and the struggles of our fledgling nation in that time and space do not seem so different than the things we face today. The names have changed and time has marched on, but people will be people and nothing makes that more clear than this amazing biography. I strongly suspect that were John Adams alive today he'd be in the thick of things in Congress sticking to his morals and fighting for the rights of the PEOPLE versus the rights of the government to interfer.
   
   (Did I mention that I love my Kindle?)



2. Wonderful picture of the times and the man. McCullough gives us a fascinating picture of a great man with public and private flaws (the Alien and Sedition Acts were wrong, and his relationship with his second son Charles could have been repaired if he was more compassionate). He also shows us the tumultuous times in which he lived and the people in his orbit (you rock, Abigail). Although I agree with reviewers that note that McCullough does become too fond not only of John but most of the Adams family, I think as a whole the biography works well. I'll never again underestimate how truly perilous the founding of our country was.



3. David McCullough is to history was John Grisham is to literature: he's lite fare, easily digestable but not particulary nourishing. To me, the book seemed like a watered-down and streamlined portrayal of an important historical figure. It's reasonable well-written and moves along at a good clip; it just seems superficial. I guess that's o.k. if your target audience is people who don't normally read history. If you fall into that category, the JA is probably the book for you. Personally, however, I usually like to read "serious" works of history. History-lite just doesn't seem worth my time....
   
   Not terrible but not recommended.



4. There are many more erudite descriptions of John Adams. I decided to write a review because it is my favorite non-fiction book and I felt that the HBO series took the wind out of Adams' sails in so many ways. The HBO miniseries, which I long awaited, bored me to tears. There was none of the excitement in the series that I read in the book. Paul Giamatti's Adams could not speak above a whisper and did not convey, at least to me, the spirit of John Adams, which I read in 2001 and still remember vividly. John Adams had such an interesting and varied life, that to distill it as it was done in the HBO series leaves the viewer questioning how this complex man was anything more than a bombastic autocrat.
   
   David McCullough's use of primary sites and his use of the many letters written to his wife Abigail makes this book one of the most memorable and romantic of all the founding fathers. He clearly writes about his personal life - his treatment of his children, the favoritism of John Quincy, his life-long love affair with his wife and their juxtaposition with his duty to his fledgling country as well as his interest in his own epitaph. He brings to life a human who was so multi-faceted and brings most of those facets to life.
   
   I am not an historian, so I realize there are many things missing knowledge of John Adams. However, that which was included was readable, interesting and kept me turning those many pages with ease.



5. Of course it is only a metaphorical question, but if there were more politicians around who adored their wife and their country, America would be a pretty different place. He said what he thought and he thought deeply. He had a strict moral obligation to his God, country and his family and would never consider going against any of these things. This book reveals all these things about a complicated man. It is not a dry academic novel but a fascinating story. You cannot find too many of these out there and I have had to read many of those to get through bachelors degree and halfway through my masters. One of the things that impressed me the most was the level with which he treated his wife. In the time that he lived this was phenomenal.

5 comments about Alexander Hamilton.

1. Anyone interested in U. S. history will enjoy reading this fascinating biography of Alexander Hamilton. don't miss it!



2. My interest in Hamilton originated when first seeing his portrait on the front of the ten dollar bill made an indelible impression on me as a young child. As Chernow describes in his book, Hamilton's portraits generally exude confidence, self-assurance, as well as omniscience, and these were the qualities that triggered my curiosity in this founding father.
   
   Reading Chernow's biography, I find that Hamilton's talents were unparalleled even among the most distinguished of the founder fathers and superbly well regarded and admired by those who shared his views and judged him objectively, most notably George Washington. Hamilton's courage during the Revolution, unshakable honor and integrity, unrelenting effort to advance the republican government, and sheer brilliance in both ideas and managerial superiority make him a man with few matched peers. As the author notes in the book, Hamilton's footprints in the formation of the US government qualify him uniquely as one of the most influential figures in US history and arguably make him the founder of the US government.
   
   However, for all his brilliance and unmatched fervor for the new republic, Hamilton was not without fatal flaws. His lapses of judgment gave those who sought to discredit him plenty of ammunition and marred his accomplishments and undoubtedly helped to procure Hamilton's relative obscurity in US history.
   
   As is often the case, judgments rendered on historical figures are not constant and change with time, renewed interests, and additional narrative accounts (i.e. this biography.) For me, Hamilton's exemplary devotion to the nascent republican government was so pure and rare that he was a true servant to the public in every way. I wish that through new reviews of Hamilton's life such as this biography by Chernow, more people will come to learn about the life of an extraordinary human being whose prodigious talents and assiduousness propelled him to personal heights and triumphs and whose personal insecurities, fueled by a dogged conviction to uphold his honor as all costs, also brought his nadir.



3. This is a FULL length biography of Alexander Hamilton. It is over 700 pages. A friend of mine dismissed it, saying who cares about the full details of the guy's childhood. If you do not have my friend's attitude, if you want the very full story of a very important man, this is a very, very good book. Indeed, I think there is an old-fashioned, rich pleasure -- very contrary to our You Tube age-- in reading a long, slow book like this that really gives you all of the details.
   
   Some have said that this book is hagiography. I did not find it to be so at all. I thought it gave a very full, and sympathetic, treatment of Hamilton, but it is definitely a portrait of him, warts and all. You see the young and incredibly intelligent aide to General Washington and the masterful first Secretary of the Treasury, who set the foundation for the security of the American financial system. You also see the self-destructive idiocy of the affair with Maria Reynolds, the arrogant damage of the quarrel with John Adams and the other extraordinary lapses in judgment of this brillant man.
   
   Two aspects of Hamilton's life are given prominence by this book, which I think merit comment. First, his relationship with Washington was of central importance to his life, and was of incredible importance to the nation. Hamilton was so brillant as Secretary of the Treasury, and as author of the Federalist Papers, that he tends to fill the modern eye, more than the quieter and less dramatic Washington. But, as you see the whole relationship between the two, you see how much Hamilton needed Washington and gained from him. Not just in the sense of being promoted from nothing to great power by Washington's support, but in a character sense. Hamilton was brillant, but lacking in balanced judgment. Washington lacked any kind of showy intelligence, but had an extraordinarily sound sense of judgment. You really see this here, when the Washington Administration is contrasted -- where arch-enemies Jefferson and Hamilton can serve together in the Cabinet to the great benefit of the nation-- with the Adams Administration -- where even members of the same party can not get along.
   
   Second, Chernow rescues Eliza Hamilton from an undeserved historical neglect. She was a grand women, in her own right, and Chernow both begins and ends the book with a very poignant and dramatic portrait of her.
   
   A wonderful performance.



4. It's probably impossible to write a biography of Hamilton that ISN'T interesting, but what I really appreciated was the degree to which Chernow puts Hamilton's views and actions in cultural context. I learned a lot about a variety of topics: the nature and role of the press, the practice and significance of duels, controversies about commerce and armed forces, etc. etc.
   
   To those who accuse Chernow of being biased in favor of his subject or of "distorting" history, all I have to say is: "duh". It's a biography! By it's very nature, it's partial and a distortion.
   
   What makes it a GOOD biography, and a useful and rewarding work of history, is the great extent to which Chernow uses his subject to illustrate and cast light on the period in question.



5. I finished David McCullough's biography of John Adams shortly before reading this book. McCullough's book was one of the finest biographies that I have ever read, but in my opinion this book is even better. To be fair to David McCullough, Ron Chernow had much more to work with, as Alexander Hamilton was a much more interesting character than John Adams.
   
   Ron Chernow has produced a well-documented biography and an immensely rewarding book. In his hands, Hamilton's life reads as it was a work of fiction created by Charles Dickens, Horatio Alger and Joan Collins, as written by Samuel Elliot Morrison. Few men have started so low on the social ladder, with so many impediments to success but rose so far as Alexander Hamilton. While I knew the outline of Hamilton's early life, I did not realize the degree to which it was truly Dickensian and the degree to which he was a truly self-made man, in the mold of a character from a Horation Alger story. His life was plagued by scandal (mostly self inflicted) of the sort created by Jackie Collins.
   
   I knew he was on George Washington's staff during the Revolutionary War, but I did not realize that he was in effect Washington's chief of staff. I knew that he was the first Secretary of the Treasury, but I did not realize the extent to which he created the financial structure of the United States. I knew of his involvement with the Federalist Party, but not that he was a driving force behind the party and that to some he was the Federalist Party. I knew that he experienced difficulties with Jefferson and John Adams (as well as with many others), but I did not understand the depths of these conflicts or their origins until I read this book.
   
   While highly readable and immensely entertaining, the book is nonetheless a work of great scholarship. I expected a well-written book, but one that was based primarily on previous works, but the book is much more. It is rich in interpretation and analysis as well as interesting details. Also, as the lengthy acknowledgement section points out, Chernow did original research in the West Indies, Scotland and in various American archives, unearthing a considerable amount or original material.
   
   I have one caveat, although a very minor one. This is a partisan biography (as are most) and some scholars may disagree with Chernow on some points. Chernow, does not, however, shy away from exposing Hamilton's faults and strives to paint a balanced although admittedly partisan picture.

5 comments about Lincoln.

1. Well written book with great detail. The depth of research must have been great to give this reader a special feel for each progression of Lincoln's amazing journey though life. I'm really enjoying this book.



2. After hearing all of the hype about this Lincoln bio I finally got around to reading it. OK, I am spoiled, I read Sandburg's bio and it is hard to find anything close to that-certainly not in this book. To sum up my feelings, I don't know Lincoln any better after reading this than before. Prof. Donald misses the mark and I think he is somewhat awestruck that he can't seem to get any deeper. It is well researched and well written, but a bio needs much more.
   Here was a man with barely any formal education, not particularly succesful as a politician, elected over many who who knew they could do better and then the nation splits apart into Civil War. Not only did he face the undaunted task of trying to hold the nation together, but learn to be a general of sort, let alone his home life. Other bios show how Lincoln rose to the challenge to hold our nation together and finally find the right general, Grant, and become probably our greatest president.
   Somehow, Donald's book does not do it for me.



3. In giving this book five stars, it is easy to confuse the book with its subject. Who doesn't love Lincoln? (Well, I guess there are some, but there are even people who don't like Bob Seger.) Like many people, particularly those (like me) who grew up right in the heart of the Lincoln country of Central Illinois, I thought that I knew Lincoln, but there is a feeling that most of what I knew was mythic legend rather than facts. The biographies of Lincoln are many, and the classic ones are multi-volume and would take years to digest. Donald has given the English-speaking world the gift of condensing all of that into a thorough and modern account that can be easily consumed, and maybe leave the reader healthily interesed in more.
   The book literally begins with what little we know of Lincoln's birth, and ends just moments after his untimely death. The entire singular focus of the book is Lincoln. Precious little is devoted to any detail outside of Lincoln's life, so some prior elementary knowledge of Lincoln's place and times (including the Civil War) would be helpful. I think that the one deviation from Lincoln that I noticed was on the topic of Booth and his tragic plot to kidnap and, as it eventually turned out, to kill the President. Other than that, the reader is shown the world and its events as Lincoln saw and knew them, for the most part. I felt that there was enormous and significant gaps in the narrative in places, but it was also obvious to me that the gaps are the result of what we don't know about Lincoln; after all, for most of his life, Lincoln was not a historical figure, and he went about his life and career without keeping minute records of it, just as we all do. What we know of his early life (birth in Kentucky, the surprisingly many years that he spent in the wilderness of Southern Indiana as a young boy, and the New Salem years) we gather from the interviews and biographical accounts that were collected after he was elected President and the world had an interest in these otherwise forgotten facts. We can know much about his adulthood from the accounts of his law partners, fellow legislators, and others who worked and lived with him, and who no doubt recorded their thoughts and memories after it was clear that they had walked with one of history's true giants. Given the sometimes thin detail, I noticed that nowhere in the book were the smallest things noted with more triviality than in the few days between the end of the War (April 9th) and his murder (April 14th/15th). Clearly, those ironically joyous days became more important to the eyewitnesses, and every detail was recorded for posterity. So, whereas there are many important events of which we know little (say, the deliverance of the Gettysburg Address), in the final days and hours of Lincoln's life, we know almost every quip, word, and gesture that he produced. It is precious information, but also sad to reflect on.
   Like other reviewers here, I was astonished to learn of the evolution of the man. His country beginnings cannot be overstated: he began life with absolutely no advantage whatsoever, except for the very chemistry that drove him to become truly a masterful President. In one of the book's (that is, the historical record's) many gaps, I missed the force that drove him to leap into his successful law career, but looking back we can see that he parlayed a skill for analysis, speech, and human manipulation into a political career that catapulated him into the White House. This was a time in the young country when such things could be accomplished - even by rough-hewn country lawyers from the "West." The reader also sees his evolution from an inexperienced executive who has the very future of the Union on his shoulders, and whose political mistakes and challenges were as many as they were life-crushing, into a shrewd master of not only the Presidency but the known political world as well.
   I was surprised to find that there were places in the book where I find Lincoln to be unlikeable. His contempt of his father is hard to understand, as was his sophomoric early philosophy of "Reason." He certainly seems like he would have been a neat guy to know (major understatement), but he also seems to have been sometimes cold, too driven by his career and politics, and a bit of a jerk to those he could not tolerate (and there were many). Was he "Honest Abe" who would walk a mile to return a few pennies change? Yes, I guess so, but he was not a pushover.
   Anyway, this is a review of the book and not the man. Great book on a greater subject. I like what Donald has done: put together the singular and readable biography, and presented one of history's top subjects without too much editorializing or sentiment. Having now read it, I cannot imagine being an American and not doing so.



4. Dr. Donald's book is an excellent one volume biography of our greatest President, an historical figure of truly Biblical stature who led America and humanity through truly epochal changes. It should be required reading.



5. Read Leadership: Past, Present & Future by Carlos M. Rivera and then read this book. You will love both books.
   5 Stars

5 comments about Eyewitness to the Civil War.

1. Purchased this book as a gift for my husband who has many books on the Civil War. He says this is one of the best books he's seen in years. He's very impressed with it and is quite happy with his gift.



2. "Eyewitness To The Civil War" is a wonderful book. It is large enough to be a "coffee table" book, and a great addition to anyone's Civil War
   library. I highly recommend it!.



3. The item came in great shape.Was very happy with my order and would order from them again..



4. We found this book to be a great overall picture of the civil war. Enough pictures and written information to satisfy most but the extreme history buffs.



5. One of the best Civil War books I have seen in a long time. Full of pictures and interesting text. A bunch of pictures I have not seen before. A must for any collector of Civil War books.

5 comments about The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.

1. Lincoln had been my "favorite president" throughout my life based on the history taught in high school and college, but no more.
   
   This book opened my eyes to the other side of this American icon, the side responsible for the centralization of our once democratic government.
   
   Very easy to read - see for yourself.



2. I found the book discussing many facts that I had already studied because I always felt that our teachers were mouthing what was fed to them by the Great Northern Machine that rolled over the agricultural South and therefore wrote the history books.
   
   This book is as much about the Republican Party, their insincerity, bigotry and their military-industrial complex as it is about Lincoln. Good or bad, we should look at history in its full context and this book gives us a good start. You may also want to do as I do and Google those parts where you want more knowledge on the subject, good or bad. No such book is without its faults.
   
   One fact that most blacks miss, is that while Lincoln emancipated them, for political reasons, the results of the war and the way "reconstruction" was carried out in the South for the next decade, caused hatred and kept the blacks as second class citizens for another one hundred years and even today, they are struggling. Lincoln and Obama's own state wanted laws, making free black's persona, non grata in Illinois. This did not happen to England, Spain, and France who did not fight a war and kill their own people to free the slaves.
   
   The Democratic Party finally saw the error of their ways but the Republican Party would like to still keep this hate, status quo.
   
   George Bush, like Lincoln, is careful to not keep written word of his misdeeds and of his administrations secretes. Also his lackeys are destroying and hiding their actions as well. He is also guilty of some of the same crimes as Lincoln and even more which are too numerous to name here. He says that History will show him to be a great leader. HA! He must think that history will be as kind to him as it was to Lincoln. Lincoln and the Republicans had the benefit that the winner of a war writes their history. This is not the case for Bush or the Republican Party. Maybe this book will throw a little light on what happens when Americans believe, without question, all the propaganda that is thrown at them.



3. Overall, this book is exciting and fast paced. I received my Ph.D in American History at Georgetown and I thought his account of Abe was spot on. This book repeats at time but Thomas Dilorenzo makes up for it in posterity and style. This book should be required at every school!



4. I read this book after seeing a few libertarian critiques of Lincoln, thinking they made sense, and hearing this was a good summary of the libertarian arguments against Lincoln. I found the book very compelling, and would ask critics of the book and Lincoln to stop focusing on the trees and look at the forest of Lincoln:
   
   -Why did habeas corpus have to be suspended?
   -If slavery was the reason for going to war, why was the Emancipation Proclamation not issued until the war was over a year old, and why did it explicitly keep slaves in border states enslaved?
   -Why did Lincoln imprison thousands of Americans and shut down tens if not hundreds of newspapers?
   
   Even if you think the author selectively picks and chooses quotes of various people to make his points, it's hard to read this book, think about what actually happened from 1861-1865, and not have a much different opinion of Lincoln than what most of the United States currently does.



5. Let me say, right off, that this is not a biography of Lincoln. It is not even a character study because most of Lincoln's character is never touched here. This is a study - I think it fair to call it an attack - of one aspect of Lincoln, his ideological purpose in fighting the Civil War. However, it is a determined, fact-filled attack, worth reading.
   
   I have always believed, on the basis of my own studies, that the American Civil War was unnecessary, but this is a view that arouses hostile feelings in Americans as it runs against the public-school civics course beliefs around that conflict.
   
   There is definitely an American Civic Religion with a set of tenets and sacred writings and a cast of mythically-endowed characters comparable to the chief figures of the Old and New Testaments. Many well-known American historians, some quite eminent, are conscious or unconscious proponents of the Civic Religion, not such a difficult thing as you might first imagine because history, just like good police detective work, involves interpretation, judgment, and instincts. The raw facts, when they are even known, are always susceptible of emphasis and interpretation.
   
   So it was refreshing to find a serious writer who also believes that the war was unnecessary.
   
   However, Dilorenzo's reason for saying the war was unnecessary is different to my own. The author believes that Lincoln consciously used the war to impose the so-called American System of the Whig Party and Henry Clay, destroying the powers of the individual states and centralizing government in the United States. I believe rather that this was one of the unavoidable effects, wars always and everywhere being far more revolutionary events than people generally recognize.
   
   There can be no doubt that Dilorrenzo marshals a strong case, but I believe that he largely fails to prove his main thesis. Lincoln, although not the sentimental figure of American text books and the Lincoln Memorial, was not America's Joseph Stalin.
   
   Most of his fact-marshalling is impressive, but when he goes off on a tangent to give a background on the basic political split between Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians, he actually gets it rather wrong. Jefferson was anything but the kind of figure he is in the eyes of libertarian devotees like Dilorenzo. He was hungry for power, hungry for empire, and ruthless to those who opposed him. He bent or broke laws many times and never was bothered about rights of others where they stood in the way of his vision. Jefferson was, in short, everything the author claims Lincoln was.
   
   The tone of this book becomes almost oppressive as the author hammers away with citations and anecdotes tending to support his view - in other words, the author is guilty of overkill.
   
   The sense of oppressiveness is increased by the fact the author writes from an ideological viewpoint, not many pages convincing the reader of the author's pronounced libertarian attitude. In general, I do not like histories or biographies written with an ideological perspective, but here the fault is compounded by the author's narrow focus.
   
   I don't think anyone with a fairly open mind can study Lincoln and come away with a view like Dilorenzo's. Lincoln himself was a victim of believing in the American Civic Religion of his day. He genuinely believed in The Union as a semi-mystical concept. Lincoln was a genuine skeptic with regard to conventional religion and the existence of God, and the feelings that might have had an outlet there attached themselves to "The Union." He was tough and hard-headed in many respects, but he would have been, in this writer's judgment, temperamentally incapable of launching and continuing a vast war for the purpose of installing Whig policy.
   
   For those interested, the reviewer believes the Civil War was unnecessary because most great wars are unnecessary and rarely solve anything. For example, World War I only created the foundation for World War II. The American Civil War, which was not fought over slavery, solved little about the ugly institution of slavery. The South went on for about a century afterward with a new set of arrangements for its black citizens hardly better than the previous institution.
   
   The Civil War did establish the anti-democratic principle that no state can separate from the United States, hardly an admirable or advanced attitude. The Civil War is also the tipping point in America becoming a world power with fervent imperialistic views (demonstrated earlier in a more provincial theater of operation in many policies such as the Mexican War), again hardly an admirable outcome.
   
   I believe too that the angry, long-unforgiving South actually dragged the United States backward in social progress over the next century. The United States might have become a better, more decent place without the South and its superstitious religion and traditions of personal honor, much resembling the blood-feud attitudes of backward places like Armenia. And slavery itself would have naturally died out even in the South in a few decades as it did in so many places like Brazil.

5 comments about A Slave No More: Two Men Who Escaped to Freedom, Including Their Own Narratives of Emancipation.

1. Recently two new important African-American slave narratives have come to light, published here along with scholarly commentary for the first time. They are considered significant by historians because they support a theory that slaves played a role in bringing about their own freedom. Traditionally slavery is thought to have ended with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation - Lincoln freed the slaves, we are taught in school. However, is it possible that the slaves themselves played a role in their own freedom, that their own actions, conscious or not, helped bring about Emancipation? This is what today many historians contend, and these two narratives support that view. "For most slaves", Blight says, "freedom did not come on a particular day; it evolved by process." It was the process of waves of slaves escaping into Union lines as the war moved south, often forming shanty towns of "contrabands" (as the Union called escaped slaves, they were initially classified by the north as property). Eventually something had to be done about the"contraband" and Lincoln signed some limited laws that gave them freedom, which eventually morphed into the Emancipation Proclamation. But it was the slaves desire for freedom, willing to risk life by escaping, that forced the issue of Emancipation. Further, many of these freed slaves then took up arms and joined the Union army. It is estimated over 700,000 of the nearly 4 million slaves found freedom through this "process", the remaining 3.3 million achieving freedom with the 13th Amendment.
   
   Whatever the historical debates, these narratives are interesting and even thrilling. Although not as well written as Frederick Douglass, in many ways the adventures of these young men are more real and tangible - as private documents they were not written to be published, not filtered through an editor. They were meant for friends and family and thus have a rough, raw real edge to them.
   
   David Blight has done a great service to historians and the public by both publishing the original sources and summarizing and expanding on them. Each of the two narratives has a corresponding chapter that re-creates the narrative in more detail and clarity for the modern reader. In addition there are two chapters that examine what happened to the men after the war including some fascinating pictures. No two slave narratives are alike and these will surely not disappoint as important historical case examples and thrilling stories. America has two new unsung heroes representative of 100s of thousands who sought and found their own freedom.



2. This book makes the Civil War period and slavery come alive, partly through the real voices of 2 emancipated slaves, and partly through the consumate writing skill of the author. The level is just right: carefully documented sources (endnotes) that authenticate the story, plus a wonderfully accessible writing style that is clear, never boring, and quietly compassionate. This is an engaging book I recommend even to those having only a casual interest in history.



3. The book provides an in depth look at the lives of two black men who were determined to escape slavery. The book also reveals the hopelessness experienced by slaves in their daily lives. It also exposed the cruelty of slave owners, who were considered in all other respects to be genteel and upstanding citizens in their community.



4. History buffs in general will find "A Slave No More" a highly valuable read. For students of American history, and particularly for those who are interested in the Civil War and Reconstruction period, this book is must reading. There are not many first-person accounts by former slaves available to us. This volume contains two such narratives, hitherto unpublished: one is by Wallace Turnage and the other is by John Washington, both former slaves who found their way to freedom during the Civil War. David Blight presents them here in their original form "with virtually no changes to the grammar and spelling," although he has done some minor editing in their structure (primarily providing paragraph breaks) to assist in reading.
   
   The reader is not, however, immediately thrust into the narratives themselves. Blight spends the first 162 pages introducing us to the two writers, using genealogical data, and to the context in which the narratives were written. Turnage's and Washington's escape to freedom occurred during the chaos of this nation's most bloody war (over 600,000 casualties) and amidst a political and cultural conflict (state's rights and slavery) which had been ripping the country apart for many decades. It is, I think, essential to understand the plight of the Black slave on a personal level, to understand what it means to be someone else's "property," completely and totally subject to someone else's will, to recognize and accept that slaves were not thought to be fully "human." Blight does an outstanding job of providing the necessary background for the narratives.
   
   I recommend this book to all readers who love the study of history. It is a valuable contribution to the genre.



5. There have been many books about slavery and the brutality of the life that so many people had to endure. Much of this has been documented by authors and historians, and told about in history books and fiction alike. Part of this record includes the slave narratives, first person accounts, written by slaves themselves, that detail their hardships and trials, and most of them, recounting their path to freedom. David Blight has two such narratives in his new, and frankly, phenomenal new book: A Slave No More: Two Men Who Escaped to Freedom, Including Their Own Narratives of Emancipation. This is a book for your shelf.
   
   Blight starts the book with a brief review of the history of slave narratives, the distinct differences between pre and post-emancipation narratives, and how these two remarkable narratives fell into his possession, both within six months of each other. He then retells their own lives, giving background and general information (including some from other slave narratives) to make the two men's accounts more whole.
   
   The rest of the book is the actual narratives of both John Washington and Wallace Turnage. And what a powerhouse of writing both of these narratives are. Both men, finding their path to freedom during the Civil War, both with help from the Union army. But each man found his path to freedom in his own unique way, and both accounts are riveting memoirs of using wits, guts, and determination to ensure their survival.
   
   It's so personal to read these. You get a sense of the men behind the words, it's almost like you are eavesdropping on a grandfather recounting his younger days to a granddaughter. The narratives are edited by Blight, but he largely seems to keep a hands-off attitude with both of them, leaving the reader the chance to experience the author first hand. You leave the narratives painfully wanting more ... even though Blight has provided more.
   
   These narratives paint a picture of true American heroes. Men who lasted, despite incredible odds against them, to live and thrive beyond the situations they found themselves in. When Washington gets to live, as a freed man, in the same house in which he served as a slave, the sense of triumph is palpable, even though Washington is not gloating one bit. Much has been said about the brave soliders that lived and died for the American cause. These two men exemplify that to the fullest.
   
   I finished this book with a sense of awe and wonder with these two men, and a desire to want more. This book is a true piece of scholarship, adding to the growing richness of slave narratives. Hopefully, as time progresses, we will unearth more views of this time long past, to remember and appreciate once again.
   
   A true five star book!

5 comments about The Madness of Mary Lincoln.

1. This was an incredibly well researched work. New material gave the feeling that the reader was part of the rollercoaster life of Mary Lincoln.



2. This is one of the weakest books I have ever read on either of the Lincolns, and comes across largely as a toss-off result of his research on Robert T. Lincoln and his unbelievable (and seemingly wasted) discovery of previously unknown MTL letters. Emerson completely ignores the vast scholarship on Abraham Lincoln's own mental illness, citing the exceptional work "Lincoln's Melancholy," but mentions nothing of his own severe depression. He completely dismisses the well-documented historical fact of women being committed to institutions against their will or need, particularly after being widowed, and there is no gender analysis of the public or medical response to Mary Lincoln's erratic behavior. And even if she were, as Emerson claims, suffering from bipolar disorder, that hardly qualified her as "insane" or requiring hospitalization. Few women could have suffered as many tragic losses as she did - not the least of which was having her husband murdered as he sat beside her - and withstood it with complete strength and equanimity.
   Worst of all seems to be the zero-sum value judgment Emerson seems to need to draw in order to redeem the negative reputation of R.T. Lincoln as a son - there is no nuance in either character's behavior; M.T. Lincoln is completely nuts and therefore malicious, while R.T. Lincoln is the perfect understanding son trying to do what is best for his mother. Good history rarely ignores so many valuable sources or lacks any degree of nuance. This book unfortunately does both.



3. I found this book to lend key insight into the troubled mind of an often-misunderstood woman. I also found her relationship with Abraham Lincoln to be anything but "normal." She was actually his second choice among her own sisters, and it appears theirs was a relationship fraught with extreme highs and lows, not always attributable solely to her flaws.
   
   Initially a tad (no pun intended) eccentric, the horrors she experienced ultimately served to unravel her. Seeing her husband and children die before her very eyes was simply too much, leading to her confinement in a "home," by her loving son Thomas. As is frequently the case in these matters, she felt that Thomas, a good and worthy man, had betrayed her and spent the remainder of her days vilifying him.
   
   The writing is clear, though a bit plodding at times. An historian's fascination with minutiae sometimes clouds the narrative flow, particularly for the casual reader.
   
   Nevertheless, there is much to learn here, and much to recommend this woman's sad tale.



4. I should say first that my own works on Mary Lincoln were generously referenced by Jason Emerson, with whom I had some correspondence as he prepared his book. My article, "Mary Lincoln's Final Illness: A Medical and Historical Reappraisal" (with co-author the late Robert Feldman, a neurologist)was published in the Journal of the History of Medicine,1999, volume 54, 511-542; also "Mary Lincoln's 'Suicide' Attempt: A Physician Reconsiders the Evidence", published in the Lincoln Herald, 2003. I can make both articles available if you write to me at bertzpoet@yahoo.com.
   
   Feldman and I show quite substantially that Mary Todd Lincoln suffered from a spinal cord degeneration called tabes dorsalis, and that the physicians who examined her in 1882 (commissioned to do so by Congress as it considered her plea for a pension) were experts in that disease. The signs and symptoms of that physical illness were the major pieces of 'evidence' to impute insanity at her trial. As for her delusional state in the run-up to the trial and just after, it is clear that this was a post-traumatic stress reaction to the 10th anniversary of her husband's murder -- it was not the first time that she had other, less severe, 'anniversary' reactions, something she herself recognized.
   
   Although the diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder is interesting, given her high strung and volatile personality with a mania for shopping, it can only be conjecture. Curiously enough with only four months of being in the asylum (truly a rest home for her, no medications or constraint,)in the years following, she showed no more classic manifestations of Bipolar Disorder; in fact, rather mellowed and reconciled with her son.
   
   Emerson's book is splendidly written and a fine contribution to the field of Lincoln studies.
   
   Norbert Hirschhorn MD



5. My suggestion to people interested in the life of Mary Todd Lincoln is to read all available related material, including Jason Emerson's book, and think critically as you do. I think it would be especially unwise to naively accept this book "The Madness of Mary Lincoln" as a true account of her life. While any reader will appreciate the copies of letters of correspondence between Mary Todd Lincoln and other important historical figures in this book's appendix, I believe that readers will be and should be critical of the author's work. This book consists of many contradictions (often within the same paragraph), a parochial attitude (not unlike many of the 19th century individuals being discussed), several assumptions, and too many unsupported arguments. Overall, my rating of "The Madness of Mary Lincoln" is low, because as an anthropologist I believe the author was overtly subjective under the pretence of being unbiased and I found this troubling. The author's language says it all-- from the beginning . . . The "Madness" of Mary Lincoln (emphasis mine). In Emerson's epilogue he emphasizes that it is harmful to dichotomize these historical individuals as either villains or heroes and it is equally unwise to consider any story without it's historical context. I agree with him and am astonished that he did not follow his own advice in this book. Mad In America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and The Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally IllTrauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence--from Domestic Abuse to Political TerrorMadness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant : Memoirs and Selected Letters : Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant / Selected Letters, 1839-1865 (Library of America).

1. Well written history is a rare treat, and rarer still is a history by one who lived through it. Grant writes engagingly and humorously and with great humility for a man who achieved so much. That he wrote this in the throes of cancer, finishing it on death's door and yet has no sence of savig himself or self pity is remarkable. It's a pity there is no one like this in the elections.



2. 
   
   
   References to political memoirs often suggest that Grant's memoirs are some of the best ever published. Have worked my way slowly through almost 800 pages of his memoirs, the accolades are deserved. Autobiographies by their nature are bound to be someway self-serving (he makes no reference to his well documented drink problems) and I am sure many historians could pick flaws with some of Grant's recollections, but the book is exceptionally well written and interesting. To my surprise, the author comes across as being compassionate and showing a high degree of empathy for many he fought against during the civil war.
   
   He is very honest in his commentaries and is not afraid to be critical of US policy. The Mexican-American war (1846-1848) was unnecessarily provoked and in his opinion "the war which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker nation. ... We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that the Mexicans should commence it."
   
   Grant is not shy in admitting that especially in his early military career, he was often frightened and would rather have been somewhere else when the bullets were flying. He is also self-effacing and sometimes humorous about his impact in early combat situations. "My exploit was equal to that of the soldier who boasted that he had cut of the leg of one of the enemy. When asked why he had not cut off his head, he replied: `Someone had done that before.' "
   
   Grant is a very good storyteller and has an excellent eye for detail and description. His contrasting profiles of Generals Taylor and Scott whom he fought under during the Mexican war are models of clarity and painting pictures with words.
   
   His account of the civil war contains numerous interesting anecdotes including one instance when inspecting a picket line which was close to a Confederate picket line. After his picket line called "Turn out the guard for the commanding General," he heard a similar command from the Confederate picket and a reference to General Grant. The Confederate line saluted "which I returned." - Amazing!
   
   Obviously, the bulk of his memoirs relate to the civil war. He suggests that he was of the same mind set as Secretary of State Seward, "that the war would be over in ninety days." Grant is very respectful of many of his former colleagues who fought against him during this war. He has little respect for the "Demagogues who were to old to enter the army ... others who entertained so high an opinion of their own ability that they did not believe they could be spared from the direction of the state of affairs," but who constantly poured oil on the secessionist fire.
   
   He lauds many of his comrades including Generals Sherman and Sheridan. While respecting Secretary of War Stanton, he does not appear to have been a great fan of his style of management. He also writes approvingly of Confederate Generals Longstreet, Lee, Bragg, Joseph Johnston and others, and takes great delight in ridiculing the military genius of Confederate President Jefferson Davis who he obviously despised. Grant writes sensitively of General Lee and the surrender at Appomattox.
   
   The author believes the death of Lincoln was a disaster not just for the North, but for the vanquished South. "He would have proven the best friend the South could have had." Interestingly, Grant makes no reference to the Gettysburg Address and to the best of my recollection only references the Battle of Gettysburg but once. He was otherwise involved in the Battle of Vicksburg at the same time.
   
   I glossed over some of the detailed military and battle descriptions in this book, but overall it is a great read. It is also interesting to note that the book saved Grant's penurious family from a life of poverty. Published by his friend Samuel Clemens, these memoirs became a bestseller after Grant died from throat cancer.



3. U.S. Grant is often said to have been a failure at everything in his life except his marriage, war, and his memoirs. The latter, written as he was dying of throat cancer in 1884-1885, provide a straightforward account of his years in uniform during the Civil War.
   
   Grant passes quickly over his Ohio boyhood and time at the United States Military Academy. His service in the Mexican War and his financial misfortunes out of uniform between the wars get only slightly more coverage. His story really begins with his return to uniform in 1861 as a commander of Illinois volunteers. The narrative follows Grant's campaigns in Missouri, Tennessee, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, his elevation to supreme command of the Union Armies, and the final grinding agony of the war in Virgina. The account ends with the cessation of hostilies in 1865.
   
   Grant's memoirs are remarkable reading for a number of reasons. First, they provide insight into the first-rate military mind of a consistantly successful general. Grant's ability to determine the essentials of a situation and remain focused on them are evident. Second, the memoirs are a classic example of clear, simple, English narrative. Third, they display the considerable modesty of a naturally reserved man, a departure from the egotism often found in the personal memoirs of famous men. Grant himself continues to be something of a mystery to historians; these memoirs do not really lift the veil of his sense of privacy.
   
   The Union Army of the Civil War had more than its fair share of politicians in uniform and politically-minded generals. Grant was not immune to spinning history his way; careful-eyed scholars have found more than a few instances where Grant remembered only part of the story or settled a few scores with old opponents. Nevertheless, Grant's memoirs are a valuable resource for understanding the conduct of the Civil War, not least because Grant became such a key figure in the winning of it.
   
   Grant's memoirs are highly recommended to students of the Civil War, and to scholars seeking to understand the art of war in the midst of rebellion.



4. General Grant's use of the English language is very interesting and informative. Absolutely a pleasure to read.



5. This book is a must-read for any Civil War or American history buff. Grant's writing is consistently clear, elegant, beautiful. He gives an engaging account of his wartime experiences that are accurate to the best of his ability, and he writes with introspection and humility. The personal letters at the end of the volume reveal much about this fascinating man, and are a welcome addition. Please read this one! Another wonderful book in this series is the volume containing Frederick Douglass's autobiographical works.

5 comments about House of Abraham: Lincoln and the Todds, A Family Divided by War.

1. Why did the majority of the Todds choose the South over the North? Their's was a border state that stayed in the Union. They owned too few slaves to have fortunes staked on the system. On p. 174 Berry defines the Todds as being "shrill with hatred... collapsed in self interest and grief". What drove them to this?
   
   Are they really "a once happy family" as Berry says? The litigation over their father's estate belies this. The litigation not only left their father's second wife (mother of 6?) dependent, but also disinherited those, like Mary, who had already had gifts from the father. Did early favoritism cause the rift as much as the war?
   
   Lincoln appears to be the model brother-in-law. Risking charges of favoritism and nepotism, Lincoln helps his Union oriented brothers-in-law (who also married Todds), giving one the ability to contract for provisions (which he exploits and when challenged threatens blackmail) and another a coveted army position away from the fray in the west. He entertains a Confederate Todd in the White House, and provides a pardon for another who will not take an oath of allegiance to the country that pardons her. His tolerance and charity towards his family recalls his tolerance of McClellan and a host of cabinet officers of similarly dubious motives.
   
   Mary personalizes the Confederate allegiance in her family as a fight against her. Maybe Mary was close to being right. Some seem to bask in the status of being able to malign a relative. Others just expect too much which can breed disappointment even under normal conditions. Maybe some of their intensity was a family rebellion against the one grown up who, by chance, had married into their family.
   
   While the book is short, it is not entirely focused. For a book on the family, too many of its precious paragraphs are devoted to sketching the war such as the battles of Manassas and Shiloh and the seige of Vicksburg. I would have liked a reference table in the beginning showing the birth order of the Todds and their marriages. Most importantly it needs some discussion on why the Todds did what they did.
   
   In a lighthearted afterward the author describes his research. While a lot went into this effort, I hope it is not thorough, because I would like to know more of these Todds.



2. Their have been some good Civil War family biographies lately. The Whalen's book on the Fighting McCook's and this book on the Todd family come to mind. Family biographies can help us understand the human cost of the Civil War as no other histories can. As family members die, we understand the war's causalities in very personal terms gaining an idea of what this costs those involved.
   
   The McCook family had no conflicted loyalties, no question of who to fight for nor any hesitations in committing to a side. They were able to establish a record of service fighting for the Union that was unique. The Todd family had conflicted loyalties, questions on who to fight for and hesitated in committing to a side. A large slave owning family from Kentucky with an in-law in the White House would cause problems for everyone. Lincoln, his wife, her brothers & sisters their spouses created a series of confrontations, personal and political problems that make up this story.
   
   The author introduces the Todd family and the principle people giving us a solid foundation for the story. Lincoln tries to keep as much of the family on the Union side as possible. His efforts delay some members "going South" and produce some real political problems in 1861 for him. Each year of the war is a chapter. This allows us to follow everyone from assignment to assignment or battle to battle. Against this backdrop, Lincoln's personal life and family problems becomes worse and worse. Each newspaper story, each battle death adds to Lincoln's problems and Mary's woes. However, at Springfield as Lincoln is buried, the Todd in-laws stand as family.
   
   The author is easy to read and manages to keep all the story lines together. These are not likable people and he clearly does not like them. This come through in a number of places and may have colored the story. In addition, the author makes misstatements about the battle of Shiloh and the POW exchange. None of his mistakes are major but he is accepting of popular stories as opposed to good scholarship. A nice touch is to take each person from 1865 to his or her death. This is always something I look for in this type of book and feel is really important. The author does an excellent job on each person giving the reader a feel for who they were.
   
   Overall, this is a very readable book. The people are well drawn allowing us to see their world and have some understanding of their choices. In addition, the author shows how the divisions in Lincoln's personal family helped him reach out to the national family as reflected in many of his speeches.



3. This is an entirely new perspective of the Lincoln family, specifically that of his wife's. While there is much known about Abraham Lincoln's wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, as well as their oldest son, Robert Todd Lincoln, who was the only child to live to a ripe old age, I know very little about the Todd Family, and was especially intrigued that a book had finally been written on this little known side of the Lincoln family. Although the book was short, and, as admitted by the author, only a cursory story of several of the members of the Todd family could be done, it was admittedly an interesting book and whetted my appetite for additional information on the Todd Family. I found that the book added a few more pieces to the complex character and personality of Abraham Lincoln the man, and found further that his "melancholia" that is so much discussed was not solely due to the failures of many of his generals, the exorbitant loss of life in the battles of the conflict, the political intrigues of the Radical Republicans and the Democratic-Copperheads, but also partly due to the inner family turmoil that he and Mary experienced with their own family, specifically the Todds. Truly, Abraham Lincoln was quite prophetic when he said that a "House divided against itself cannot stand", and surely this could be said of the Todd family who themselves were divided with several family members serving in the armed forces of the Confederacy and the Union, several killed in battle, and one assassinated. I would recommend this book, and hope to see further detailed studies of the Todd Family in the future.



4. Stephen Berry's work House of Abraham: Lincoln and the Todds, A Family Divided by War is a wonderful addition to the field of Lincoln historiography. His work is very insightful to the machinations of the Todd family. The Todd's were truly a family divided by the Civil War and its aftermath. The work is well written and researched throughly by the author. Lincoln's extended family, i.e. the Todd's were surely an embarassment for the president and his wife. However, even though many of the Todd's were confederate sympathizers, Lincoln always was supportive of his wife's sisters. This is a fine work on Lincoln and essential for Lincolnites to read.



5. Abraham Lincoln is one of the most-written about men in the English language. As a long-time Lincoln-buff, I don't mind that there are so many books, but I have to admit, I occasionally wonder if we've reached diminishing returns. A lot of Lincoln books are what I'd call "old wine in new bottles."
   
   But House of Abraham really is that rare thing: a truly new and important perspective on Abraham Lincoln. Having read most of what there is on Abraham and Mary, let me just say what I think is new here: First, the author fleshes out the Southern wing of the Todd family for the first time. These are some seriously colorful characters: David Todd was arrested for desecrating corpses in a Richmond jail; Samuel Todd and Alex Todd were Confederate soldiers killed in action; George Todd abused African-American prisoners who had been taken while storming Battery Wagner; Emilie Todd, widow of a Confederate Brigadier, spent a week in the White House, despite the scandal; Margaret Todd smuggled contraband through Union lines, on and on. In all my reading I'd never known any of this.
   
   Second, the author connects these scandals to Mary's growing unpopularity in Washington. Many books have mentioned that Mary lost three half-brothers on the rebel side (the author proves that it was only two), but none have demonstrated so clearly why her family-ties became such a problem.
   
   Finally, while House of Abraham begins as a book about the Todds, it becomes more and more a meditation on family, on the nation as a family, and on Lincoln's evolving understanding of the War. Ultimately, the author convinced me that Lincoln saw the Todds as a microcosm of the nation and that he understood the war as a "mosaic of family crises."
   
   As some of the other reviewers have pointed out, the book isn't very long, but considering it limits itself to saying something actually new about the most-written-about-man-in-America, I don't think that's surprising. Team of Rivals (which I loved) was 900 pages, but not that much of it was new. It was really the framing that was so impressive. In fact, I'd recommend reading Team of Rivals and then House of Abraham in succession. They make a terrific pair.