DOC Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation; 1861-1865 by William K. Klingaman in History

Review

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful. A decent overview; despite the use of apocryphal quotesBy D. Cloyce SmithIn one of the most readable accounts available about Lincoln's leadership during the Civil War; Klingaman focuses on the Emancipation Proclamation and how Lincoln reached the decision to issue it. The author's thesis is twofold: that the Great Emancipator's primary goal was to save the Union from division and; as a result; that his decision to issue the proclamation; when he did; was based almost entirely on strategic and political factors rather than on moral grounds: "By emancipating the Confederacy's slaves as a war measure--and not as an act of justice toward the Negro--Lincoln subordinated the ideal of freedom to the preservation of the Union."Klingaman's conclusion; of course; is hardly novel; most historians and general-interest writers (for example; James Baldwin) have always assumed as much. (This claim should not; however; be confused with the ongoing debate over whether the Civil War itself was caused primarily by the institution of slavery.) The author's aim here; then; is to moderate the popular image of Lincoln as a humanitarian saint while recognizing his worth as a stalwart; compassionate; and even apprehensive leader. A byproduct of Lincoln's wartime measure; emancipation was only the first (albeit significant) step in the struggle for equal rights in America: "Freedom would be won by the descendants of slaves; not bestowed upon them by whites."The quibbles I have with the book are with the author's use of evidence. While Klingaman acknowledges in a bibliographical note that "a great deal of myth has become mixed with the fact" of Lincoln's life; he does little to sort the legend from the man. He indiscriminately blends Lincoln's words as recorded by such impeccably reliable sources as John Hay with writings by less dependable--and even suspect--observers; such as the portrait painter Francis Carpenter (who embarked on a career drawing from a seemingly inexhaustible supply of allegedly firsthand Lincoln sayings and tales). In nearly every case; however; Klingaman presents secondhand sayings and speeches as if they were Lincoln's exact words; transcribed on the spot; even though many of these are embedded as paraphrased recollections in accounts recorded twenty or thirty years after Lincoln died.An additional sixty-odd quotes are taken from Dan and Virginia Fehrenbacher's "The Recollected Words of Abraham Lincoln;" which; as Klingaman notes; "attempts to gauge the reliability of several hundred contemporary witnesses who claim to have recorded Lincoln's words." The Fehrenbachers rank the quotes from A (direct quotation recorded contemporaneously) to E (probably not authentic). Klingaman wisely avoids the least reliable quotes; but over half are direct and indirect paraphrases from months or years or decades later (which the Fehrenbachers have awarded a rank of C or D). These include a joke about interracial marriage attributed to Lincoln by a satirist known by the name of Petroleum V. Nasby; who was recalling the incident thirty years later; a speech allegedly delivered by Lincoln; recalled by Edward Stanly twenty years later in a report labeled by the Fehrenbachers as "self-serving; politically motivated; and chronologically erroneous"; a recollection by the minister Rudolph Schleiden ("it seems clear that Schleiden did not himself hear Lincoln speak these words;" according to the Fehrenbachers); and two excerpts from a lengthy monologue attributed to Lincoln by Gideon Welles that is "a combination of Lincoln core and Welles elaboration."One cannot entirely fault Klingaman for using these various quotations in a popular account; since many of them are quite colorful and most of them may well be accurate in their essence. The problem is the lack of proper identification. In each one of the previous examples; Klingaman does not name the mouthpiece for these "sayings;" nor does he assess their reliability; nor does he even indicate; in the text or the notes; that these quotes are second- or third-hand (e.g.; "Years later; Stanly claimed that Lincoln told him that..."). Surely; accurately represented quotations are essential in a biographical account concerning itself primarily with Lincoln's personal motives; intellectual growth; and political development.Nevertheless; the book's portrayal of the events of the Civil War is largely accurate and; in spite of my serious reservations about the author's use of sources; even his characterization of Lincoln; in its broadest strokes; seems true to life. Although this volume will not satisfy those readers with a broad knowledge of Lincoln and the Civil War (and it should be approached cautiously by students); it's still a worthy introduction to the subject.6 of 6 people found the following review helpful. The History of the Emancipation ProclamationBy Robin FriedmanKlingaman's book concentrates on President Lincoln's issuance of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of September 22; 1862; and the Final Emancipation Proclamation of January 1; 1863. On a closely-related subject; the book also discusses the Union Army's gradual use of African-American soldiers as a means to winning the Civil War.Klingaman focuse on the changes in Lincoln's attitude towards emancipation and his gradual assumption of a strong leadership role. He also points out that many of Lincoln's decisions were forced upon him by the political and military circumstances of the War. Thus; Klingaman describes how Lincoln's original goal in the War was the preservation of the Union. He resisted pressure from the Abolitionists and from the Radical Republicans to emancipate the slaves in order to avoid antagonizing the border states and those in the North who would not have fought a war to free the slaves. As political pressures changed; and as the North suffered setbacks in the Virginia theatre of the war; the pressures on Lincoln changed. Although the seeds of the Emancipation had been planted earlier; as Klingaman shows; Lincoln used the end Lee's invasion of the North at Antietam as the fulcrum to issue the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation and followed it up with the Proclamation of January 1; 1863. Klingaman explains well how the issuance of the Proclamation helped change the momentum of the War; militarily; politically; and internationally.This book is not a work of new scholarship but it is valuable and worth reading nonetheless. Klingaman does a good job of emphasizing both the military and political aspects of the War; while many books concentrate on one or the other. I thought the book had particularly good insights to offer on Lincoln's relationship with Union General George McClellan.Klingaman's Lincoln is primarily a politician and a pragmatist more than a political theorist. Lincoln's backwoods humor comes through well in the book as does his depression and sadness resulting from the heavy weight of his public and private trials. There are effective descriptions of pre-war Washington; D.C. which are followed by further descriptions of the way the city and our nation changed with the industrialization wrought by the War.There are good textual discussions of both the Prelimary and Final Emancipation Proclamations which emphasize the compromises Lincoln had to make to politics rather than the role of ideas.Finally; the book briefly discusses Emancipation following the conclusion of the War and points out eloquently how much remained and still remains to be done to bring about racial equality.This book is a balanced and thoughtful history of the Emancipation for the reader interested in a seminal moment of our Nation's history.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Lincoln: Just A Man of his times?By Herbert L CalhounStep-by-step; this author builds up for the reader a new; fact-enriched context of history for the maximal understanding and reevaluation of Lincoln's monumental decision to free the slaves. Within this context one will find many layers that equally could explain why our 16th President took so long and so begrudgingly agonized over what should have been a rather obvious moral and constitutional "no brainer."Was Emancipation a moral or Constitutional necessity? Ask the Abolitionists or the Radical Republicans and the answer one gets is a resounding yes; as they saw nothing so clearly as that the institution of slavery was slowly grinding the U.S. down into a "factional moral hell" from which God would never forgive or deliver the nation. They saw slavery (but curiously not the moral consequences of racism; more generally) as corrupting the very moral foundation of the nation and undermining the legitimacy of the Constitution. However; Lincoln and most of the those who supported him (and Southerners; more generally) failed to articulate the need for Emancipation exclusively in terms of morality or even to see the threat of continuing slavery as a problem of Constitutional and spiritual immorality. While clearly the South's secession did indeed create a constitutional crisis of monumental proportions; the Abolitionists were the only ones to see it through an entirely moral or ethical lens. Lincoln did not agree that the Constitution allowed for secession (or admission of the Negro as a normal U.S. citizen) and insisted that the Union be preserved with or without slavery (that is; morality be-damned). However; the South saw "the right to leave the union" as inviolable: as one of the Constitution's most sacred protections. The only thing that both sides seemed agreed on is that Emancipation and Negroes; had nothing to do with this constitutional issue.Was Emancipation a political necessity? At least throughout the first half of the war; Lincoln; ever the Machiavellian manipulator; used Emancipation as his sole trump card; tactically withholding; revealing; even deploying and then withdrawing it on a politically "as needed basis." He did this all the while (when it suited his tactical political needs) consistently minimizing and denying its political value: If the Union could be preserved without freeing the slaves; then so be it. If the issue could be finessed; rationalized; denied and ignored; then so be that too. If on the other hand; either side could be cajoled with freedom being used as a threat; in short; if it could be deployed to maximum effect for good or evil; or withdrawn; then by all means do those things as well. In any case; Emancipation was Lincoln's royal trump card (devoid of morality or constitutional implications). One that he played with the Machiavellian skill of a sorcerer; and one that despite his often cynical manipulation of it; allowed him to nevertheless emerge as the lone hero of ending slavery and granting freedom to Negroes in the U.S. (Go figure?)Was Emancipation a racial Necessity? Everything on the surface said no it was not. However; this belied the fact that racism; Negrophobia and white supremacy were the criminally accepted inhuman norms of the day; not just in the South; but for the United States as a whole. They made up the main subtexts of American society as well as the subtext of the Civil War and even more so in its the more determinative era in the aftermath; called Reconstruction.A century and a half later; the afterglow of the racist embers of the Civil War; are still warm enough to burn brightly. Lincoln believed that all of the racist (anti-Negro was the term of art at the time) interests and concerns of the white man (most of which he shared) had to be carefully balanced even when they went unstated and unacknowledged. He was constantly triangulating; juggling and making the necessary political calculations to satisfy the concerns of the Border States; provide compensation to slaveholders for their slaves (which he always referred to as human property); address the racial sensitivities of whites both north and south ("this was a white man's war"); and more generally address the concerns about what freedom for the Negro would imply; not just to southern society; but also and more importantly; to northern society. Yet; he did not raise a finger to establish programs that might assist the slaves to make the transition from slavery to freedom. His only answer to this dilemma was to ensure that they would all somehow be deported. At the same time; all of the worse fears were fanned and played up by Lincoln himself: He raised the specter that Negroes would retaliate in kind sending the nation into a spiraling racial bloodbath; that Emancipation could spark a Negro rebellion along the lines of what had happened in Haiti; that Negroes were not yet ready for freedom; that in any case they should not be armed to fight other white men; that there was no place for them in American society and that despite the letter and spirit of the Constitution; they would never be granted social and economic equality with the white man. And so in the forefront of Lincoln's mind; deportation of the Negro instead of the more obvious course of full citizenship to go along with his freedom; was seen as an imperative: Freed Negroes were consistently seen by Lincoln as a menace to society and thus must be deported and colonized. But additionally there also were the concerns that animated northern whites the most; that Negroes would compete with them socially and for jobs; forcing wages downwards and allowing them to come in close contact with white women. Thus; it was not just pure cynicism or Machiavellian angling that led Lincoln to codify into the Emancipation Proclamation his main racial prejudices: his twin insistence that slaveholders be compensated and that Negroes agree to be deported. But more importantly; the proclamation included the provision that slaves be freed only in territories where the Union had no control: areas of the South still in rebellion. All these "riders" added to the proclamation specifically by Lincoln himself; when taken together; can only be seen as underscoring Lincoln's own deep-seated racial prejudice and disrespect for the Negro and Negro humanity. How his reputation as "the great Emancipator" could have survived this clear; mean-spirited racist hypocrisy is beyond me?Was Emancipation a Military Necessity? Of all the author's scenarios about the necessity of Emancipation; none are more compelling than that; inexorably; Emancipation (due mostly to the chaos of the Civil War itself); evolved into a military necessity. The relevant background is that although Lincoln and McClelland were of one mind on the issue of white supremacy; it remains an open question as to whether the President was being well served by his chief General in the war. Reasonable people with continue to disagree as to whether "Little Mac" (as he was derisively referred to); was incompetent; a coward; playing his own "inside game" to challenge Lincoln in the next election; or simply a traitor to the northern cause. Whatever is the correct answer; his exploits (having lost Manassas I and II; Shiloh; Chancellorsville; Antietam and only a "draw" at Andersonville (all while in each case having superior troop strength) left a lot to be desired in terms of military valor. By the end of this dismal military track record; when "Little Mac" was finally sacked; Lincoln found himself in a colossal funk and in an even deeper political and military hole: high taxes and war time inflation; having to institute a draft; lost of his Republican majority in Congress; hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded soldiers wandering around Washington D.C. with no battlefield victories to show for it. It was obvious to everyone but Lincoln himself that there was only one way to dig his way out of this rat hole: Emancipate the slaves. From the very beginning; it was self-evident to everyone that the slaves were the lynchpin of the rebellion and the backbone of the South's military efforts; and that freeing them would be the real game changer. And lucky for Lincoln; it did indeed finally come to pass. Once the slaves in the South were freed; the Confederacy began a sustain straight line decline to defeat.Summary: So why did it take Lincoln so long to use his only trump card in the war; Emancipation? Again; reasonable readers may disagree on why he tarried in deploying the obvious. However; I believe that stripped of the mythology about him; Lincoln was an unusually bright but otherwise ordinary Kentucky Hillbilly lawyer with all of the racial affectations and sensibilities of that region. He like many of his contemporaries failed to acknowledge to any degree whatsoever; the humanity of Negroes. And thus comfortably relegated them to the category of subhuman. As a result; they were denied even in principle; the elemental assumptions and the basic protections of the Constitution. And even when they proved to be the equal of; if not (in the assessment of many Union soldiers themselves); the superiors of their white solders in war; only begrudgingly did Lincoln then want to grant them; retrospectively; their hard earned humanity.However; sadly; even after the fact; this did not extend to the proclamation itself. As is true to a somewhat lesser extent today; stealth white supremacy and racism were the "criminally amoral norm" of the times not just for the South; but for the U.S. as a whole; and no one thought of either slavery or discrimination against Negroes as being uncivilized or anti-Constitutional; or that it could ultimately boomerang back (as was the case of by the Civil War itself or racism today) on whites themselves. In fact; only the most brutal practices of slavery were ever raised to the level of moral concern; and then only by the Abolitionists; who saw their own souls as being endanger of God's eternal wrath.Thus; Lincoln was (as the saying goes) a man of his times; who never could get beyond seeing Negroes as "property;" even when 200;000 of them; armed as solders; proved decisive in eventually winning the war for him and the North. Even with this startlingly contradictory evidence of his own prejudices before his very eyes; he issued forth a maximally hypocritical; racist and cynical Emancipation Proclamation in which freedom was granted only to slaves in areas still in rebellion. That is to say; the proclamation remained only a military; not a humanitarian expedient: slavery remained intact in the north and in areas of the south not still in rebellion; slaveholders were compensated for their lost property and the newly freed slaves had to consent to being deported; or were then simply left to fend for themselves.And while intellectually Lincoln's humanity was big enough to know the difference between what was morally right and his own political shenanigans; he nevertheless admitted that emotionally and attitudinally he was a dyed-in-the-wool white supremacist; and that all of his sympathies leaned in the direction of his own regional prejudices and in the interests of the white man; only. (What a poverty of humanity for a President?) At the same time; it is fair to say that at least intellectually he was capable of occasionally rising above his own regional sentiments and personal prejudices. Yet; on balance; it must also be said that Lincoln's greatness must be gauged by one single factor: that he viewed himself as but a tool of the sentiment and prejudices of the people who elected him. His favorite self-image was that of always being in their hands and at their beck and call; never wanting to get too far out in front of them. In the end that was the magic of the Emancipation Proclamation.Thus throughout his tenure; he was constantly "reading the tea leaves" of those who elected him. And in this respect; he knew instinctively that anti-Negro feelings were at the heart of everything that was important to white Americans; north and south. It was all they cared about; and ultimately; it was these same racial sensitivities that the war also revolved around. Thus; Lincoln's dilatory hesitancy was simply a reflection of how closely he viewed himself to be in tune with those whose sentiment he both valued and shared. However; once things started going badly; when he desperately needed to pull a rabbit out of the hat; then viola: out of his back pocket came the Emancipation Proclamation; with all of its build in contradictions; and racist cynicism.This author did a great job of laying the fact out so that the reader could draw his own conclusions. What a great read that also clears up a lot. Ten stars