Customer Reviews

Lincoln: A Foreigner's Quest

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

First of all, some negatives: the book could have done withsome acquaintance with recent Lincoln scholarship. For example, onLincoln's atheism, there exists evidence from independent witnesses that Abe was secretly 'dunked' i.e. baptised into the German Baptist Church, the faith of his mother. Also, the Ann Ruttledge story (the love of Lincoln's youth) has been too well verified to be doubted, despite the cloying sentimentality attached to the story, rightly castigated by the author. On the Civil War, there are egregious errors - General George Pickett was never Lee's 'second-in-command' and Appromattox Manor House, which never existed, stands in for the McClean House at the village of Appomattox Court House, which seems to be confused with Grant's HQ at City Point. Yet, the book has merits. For admirers of Lincoln (and this is one) there is the winning over of a doubter, as the author once was. There are fresh insights and the book makes the reader almost an eavesdropper was the author stolls with Old Abe through his career. Despite the persistence of the hard-nosed politician in the war-time President, Jan Morris is correct in showing how Lincoln somehow transcended his time of trial as an artist might overcome his vicissitudes and produce a great artistic work. For the Lincoln detractors (and they are many!) there is the challenge of unravelling Morris' change of heart in succumbing to the spell of Lincoln, without subscribing to Lincoln mythology. Do not read this book as a biography of Lincoln, rather it is an essay on one person's encounters with the man. Use it as an introduction to the pursuit of the greatest and most elusive of American Presidents. END

Abraham Lincoln, seen by a foreigner predisposed to dislike him for his out-of-size place in the American pantheon, still has the power to win over even a jaded critic. For Lincoln was an out-of-size character whose personality and achievements were instrumental to the shaping of modern American society. This book is part breezy travelogue and part under-researched biography. It is not a great book, it contains too many factual errors, and the author's understanding of nineteenth century American history is too shallow for this effort to find a place on the shelf of the serious Lincoln scholar. For example, Ms. Morris writes that the Mason-Dixon line came about in the 1820s as a product of the Missouri Compromise, whereas in reality it was surveyed sixty years earlier. She cites well-known and easily-verified quotations inaccurately, she accepts discredited Lincoln legends at face value, and perhaps worst of all she misunderstands the fundamental meaning of the Gettysburg Address. Yet, for all that, the book is a likeable one. Morris is up-front about her prejudices, airily unconcerned about her lazy research methods, and frequently contradictory in her opinions and conclusions. By the end, she must admit that she doesn't quite know what to make of Lincoln, although she frequently evinces affection and respect for him. This is not a serious book, but it is fun, particularly for the many readers whose understanding of Lincoln is greater than Morris's, and who will enjoy revisiting him with fresh eyes.

Please pp 245-46 of Did Lincoln Own Slaves?: And Other Frequently Asked Questions about Abraham Lincoln (Vintage Civil War Library)

I was disturbed almost at the start of Jan Morris' "Lincoln," when I found on page 5 a reference to Mount Rushmore in North Dakota instead of South. What a shame, I thought that a careless editor had allowed such a simple, silly geographical error to reach print in the work of one our finest living travel writers.

Mistakes like this always give me pause. How many non-obvious mistakes, ones that I won't easily recognize, may have crept in elsewhere in the text? But I continued reading, because in this volume as always, Morris' eye for detail and felicity of language provided reading pleasure.

Imagine my disappointment then, when, on page 57, I read of the Donner Party perishing in the Rocky Mountains instead of the Sierra Nevada. Barely a quarter of the way through, and two startling errors, both geographical, have appeared in a travel book. That's too many, even for the sort of impressionistic writing at which Morris excels. I put the book down and didn't finish it.

"Lincoln" is about Morris' reconciliation over half a century with Americans' reverence for the 16th president. Clearly, after all those years, Morris is still British and an outsider. That very perspective informs and gives spice to much of her work. So, I don't fault the author. To err is human.

However, to catch errors before they are published is professional. On the face of it, this book was not competently prepared for publication. It should have come under the watchful and informed eye of an editor or editors familiar with American geography and culture, an editor or editors who would have caught such basic mistakes.

A writer like Morris is not "too good to edit." Good writers deserve the safety net of good editing. Sadly, the publisher seems willing, for reasons which I suspect are mainly economic, to allow its writers to hang out to dry and to face public embarrassment.

In my opinion, this is editorial negligence, even publishing malpractice. If the publisher has such a cavalier disregard for the facts, for the reputation of its writers, and for the sensibilities of its readers, then readers can respond by refusing to buy this book -- and indeed by boycotting the publisher's entire catalog.

Morris spins an interesting tale, a mixture of biography, travelogue, and historical fiction. While it reads nicely, it has enough errors that I had to double-check the publisher. Expecting a small publishing house, I was shocked to see "Simon & Schuster" on the spine. A few sloppy typos caught my eye, but the author began to lose credibility when I found the glaring error others have noted about the Donner Party. When I find an error in a book, I wonder how many other errors I do not realize because the information is entirely new to me. In fact, I found several other events in the book where her version of history didn't match mine.

The book has a rather awkward ending. After what I consider a balanced (though not entirely accurate) assessment of Lincoln throughout the book, Morris declares that Lincoln's presidency fomented America's imperialistic attitudes and policies. She follows with a harsh assessment of American militarism in the twentieth century. This is an interesting idea, but it doesn't fit with the rest of the book. In hindsight, I can see parts of the book that might argue for this conclusion, but such an indictment deserves better support. Instead, it comes across as a strong opinion without much corroboration. It is as if she slapped a proposal letter for a different Lincoln book on the end of this one.

Overall, this book provides a brief overview of Lincoln embellished by visits to the places he knew. While I enjoyed it, I wouldn't particularly recommend it. Though entertaining, it misses the mark. Someone less familiar with Lincoln might get lost in the author's non-chronological organization. And while Morris hits most of the highlights, there are important things left out or glossed over. At the other extreme, a Lincolnologist would find little value here. In other words, it is too scattershot for students and too frivolous for scholars. For those of us in the middle, it is a nice read but not a good history.

I have had a vague dislike of the English literary class for so long, I sometimes forget why. Jan Morris is a good reminder. The main thrust of her book is that she once believed that Abraham Lincoln was like the grape jelly she found in American restaurants; generally liked by Americans but lacking all character and certainly inferior to marmalade. In her "quest" she makes the amazing discovery that Lincoln was a somewhat complex man who was more mature at 50 than at 20 and who found the strength to take this country through the Civil War...and that's not bad for an ugly piece of trailer trash. In the course of her meanderings, she takes gratuitous potshots at various aspects of what she sees as America. Twice, with no support, she refers to Lincoln's probable homosexuality and even identifies his lover for us. The book is almost readable when Morris doesn't intrude on her writing but, without her intrusions, it is just a standard bio and probably wouldn't have been published. So the literary hook here is that we get to see an interesting contrast between a great person and a trivial one, with the author's complete lack of self-awareness serving as a running, inside joke.

Jan Morris' account of her quest for the "real" Lincoln takes her from cynical and irritated about how Lincoln is treated as an icon by the American public to her reluctant conclusion that there really was something remarkable about the man. As an American, I found her point of view interesting, her depiction of Americans condescending and her history not well researched. She makes some good comparisons (Lincoln's family of origin as being like "white trash") some wildly off base statements (Lincoln's religous statements may have been disingenuous) and I frankly found her personal travelog to be pretty much a bore. If you want to know about Lincoln there are dozens, probably hundreds, of more accurate books. If you want to know how the person of Lincoln still manages to seep through to even an unwilling investigator, this book has some interest.

Perhaps Jan Morris's other books are better. Hope so.

If you've read your share of Lincoln books, the author's errors will become apparent. Read the Amazon reviews on this page to find more of the author's errors.

As history the book is flawed. As travelogue, no one would ever have purchased this mean spirited book for its descriptions of Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois. And the book is rife with the unsubstantiated speculations of the author.

At a murder trial, an eyewitness claimed they saw a murder by the "light of a full moon". At the right moment, Lincoln pulls out an almanac to prove there was no full moon or any moon on the night of the murder. Lincoln's young defendant, the son of an old friend from New Salem named Duff Armstrong, is freed. On page 53, the author says it was the father, not the son who was the accused. That's sloppy work. The author isn't a historian and it shows.

The author constantly describes that Lincoln was indifferent to slavery until it suited his political ambitions to oppose slavery. Conjecture. Prove it.

But what I can prove is that Jan Morris's omissions in telling facts can be very misleading. In 1862 a Sioux uprising from their reservation in Minnesota cost over 800 settlers, government agents and soldiers their lives. Lincoln sent General Pope to put down the Sioux uprising. 303 Sioux were sentenced to death by hanging. Lincoln said no and read summaries on all the death sentences and pardoned all but 38 Sioux (please remember, this was 1862).

Apparently Jan Morris doesn't like historical context. On page 131 Morris implies Lincoln hated native Americans because an Indian killed Lincoln's paternal grandfather before Lincoln was born. She also states accurately that Lincoln saw scalped white soldiers in the Black Hawk War in Illinois of the 1830's.

She forgets to tell you Lincoln saved an old Native-American surrounded by angry troops during the same Black Hawk War. Regarding the Sioux Uprising of 1862, Morris writes on page 131 that Lincoln:

"authorized the hanging of thirty eight tribesmen, the largest mass execution in American history."

Morris forgets to tell you Abe Lincoln interceded and pardoned 265 Sioux. Perhaps the Lincoln in search of justice pardoning 265 Sioux doesn't fit her argument of Lincoln's bad feelings toward Native Americans. Either the author is historically sloppy, thorough only when it serves her purpose, or just plain negligent. Take your pick.

It's true, I'm the boring Midwesterner Jan Morris dislikes to sit next to on long plane trips (read it in her book). It's true, I'm from Illinois. I married a gal that once gave tours of a Lincoln courthouse in Mt. Pulaski, Illinois.

But more importantly, I don't enjoy sloppy history, acidic travelogues, or hearsay. I do respect fair play in conversation and literature.

If you read this flawed book, keep your red pen handy.

I don't know much about Jan Morris, and I am probably not going to learn more about her. But I was cautiously optimistic when I picked this book up. I forgot I had it until just after I finished Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, which may not be the perfect book on Lincoln (I am still learning) but which rings much truer than this absurd little book. Which is a shame because I came away from Kearns's book feeling so inspired by Lincoln that I couldn't believe anyone could be as basically decent and good as Lincoln seems to be.

The travelogue part is actually the most interesting part of the book, because the history is apallingly bad. Others have cited the numerous errors, ranging from the site of the Donner Party's "cannibalism" (itself recently debunked) in the "Rocky Mountains" to some aide to Lincoln by the name of "Nicolai." The idea of Lincoln reading "ticker tape" at the War Department is charming but impossible, since the ticker wasn't invented, I think, until the late 1870s or 1880s. There's really nothing wrong with the book that some serious fact checking couldn't have fixed. And no amount of off-hand theorizing about Lincoln's sexuality can compare with the careful treatment--within the proper social context--that Kearns gives the subject in her discussion of the mode of male fiendships in the mid-1800s.

The book is fine as entertainment, but is a failure as history.

Lincoln by Jan Morris is no doubt the worst book that I have ever attempted to read. Ms. Morris attempts to put down America and Mr. Lincoln with very scathing and pompous words throughout the book. In the first chapter she visits Mr. Lincoln's birthplace in Kentucky and uses the normal stereotype words to describe Kentuckians which I found very offensive. She states that she could not find a bookstore in Kentucky. Ms. Morris I have news for you. I bought this book in Kentucky, and believe it or not, at a bookstore. The bookstore thought so much of this book that I paid $2.00 for it. I wasted my money. This book should be used for firewood. Ms. Morris if you do not like America, please keep your pompous self in England.