Customer Reviews

Lincoln the Man

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

 

 

Originally published in 1931, this biography was not what people wanted to read about the legendary hero of our hearts.

The bigger-than-life image of Lincoln is brought back to earth by Masters, and though he was severely panned by contemporary critics and public alike for his candid look at the legendary president, there is substantial research and evidence presented from those who intimately knew the much beloved subject.

A definite must-read for the historian, researcher, and biographer.

I read an older edition of this book, perhaps the first edition if the blurb on this site is correct. I agree with one reviewer who found the incessant and overdetermined animus of Masters a little much to take. However, this book is best read, not as simply objective history, but as a legal brief for the prosecution of Lincoln for crimes of war and, to a lesser extent, of peace. It is not history, but counter-history, and as such it is valuable precisely because so many of us are inclined to dismiss his criticisms out of hand.

One note. Masters is not an ideologist of the "Lost Cause" persuasion, and he certainly was not a romantic of any variety. Although known primarily as a poet (and, indeed, one of America's greatest), his training was in law. This training taught him to see with a cynic's eyes the sophistry and rhetorical obfuscation that often passes for politics; he judged Lincoln as he would have judged any lawyer on the make who argues death and injustice with demagogic piety and sophistic intent. However, I think he falls prey to the tendency to view the assassinated president as a less ambiguous man than he truly was, which is not to say that Lincoln was innocent of the crimes Masters charges him with. And to charge Lincoln with defending oligarchic interests in the North (such as the railroads and the tariff system), while not necessarily inappropriate or even inaccurate, ignores evidence that his counterpart in the Confederacy acted on behalf of similar interests in the South (see, for instance, "Bitterly Divided" by David Williams). War always has a tendency to create tyrants out of any but the best statesmen, which is why the argument over which side actually started the conflict is (still) so contested--because after hostilities were initiated it was of military necessity that great powers would be assumed or asserted by the executives of both federations. Thus it is the scope of Lincoln's ambition which would really convict him--to know whether he had, all along, sought to provoke a smoldering conflict into war in order to fulfill a quest for power unmitigated by higher purpose. This is rather more difficult to determine, but Masters goes further than most in making the case that yes, he did.

Scully and Moulder rejoice, because this book proves "The Truth is Out There". I strongly recommend this book to anyone who yearns to understand why our country is currently in such terrible shape. You will never refer to Lincoln as "Honest Abe" or "The Great Emancipator" ever again after reading this work. I pray that the history books do not lie to our children and revere Clinton the way they do Lincoln. Hopefully, historians will have the same guts that Masters had in 1931 and tell the real story about Clinton.

After finally reading Masters account, there is little doubt that the attempts to banish this book were premised upon the usual cynical dishonesty of polticians who pander to religion, myth, power and money. Having studied Lincoln, he was only a man conflicted by his upbringing, profession and ultimately a quest for power. Masters was a rational man who understood that inciting a war in which more than 600,000 human beings perished with the justification that those in the South who had voluntarily seceded from a voluntary union could be compelled to remain subjects of a government which was founded as a servant of the people was nothing less than capital crime. Lincoln was, like George W Bush, a sociopathic criminal. It has long been conceded that the war was not fought over slavery; yet, schoolchildren are routinely propagandized by the nonsensical claims about Lincoln which have placed his likeness on pedestals. Our children and citizens need to read such critical analyses, INCLUDING Masters rational critique of the involvement of religion, to understand that we, as the people, were intended to have sovereignty over our own lives, surrendering only such freedom as the Constitution expressly authorizes, and retaining democratic license restrained by the Bill of Rights to avoid majority tyranny. The Civil War was entirely unnecessary and counter productive. For more than a Century after it ended, the hatred it engendered resulted in the denial of real civil rights and freedom to the black minorities. It most certainly would have been more practical and consistent with the prevailing law (at the time) and Constitution for the abolitionists, many of whom were extremely wealthy, to convince the government (with their assistance) to purchase the slaves who were lawfully owned by a Constitutional "taking" with just compensation while simultaneously outlawing any additional slaves. Instead, as we know, the Civil War only enriched the Northern industrialists, impoverished the South and left death, destruction and chaos in its wake. Masters and those who have rationally critiqued the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln were and are right. The majority of Americans are simply ignorant fools who readily accept myths, historical and religious, in making decisions. As proof, there still remain millions of people in this country who believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction when we attacked despite the lack of any evidence. Just believe. No, THINK. For those who continue to BELIEVE Lincoln was a great man, look at the facts, examine his statements, speeches and conduct, and I am confident that at a minimum you will conclude that Lincoln was, as Masters states, nothing more nor less than a man but certainly not entitled to any consideration of greatness. What if a President would have been successful without the carnage, destruction and hatred in abolishing slavery? Now that would truly have been a man whose image could justifiably been placed on a pedestal.

Masters hit the nail on the head! Lincoln was a commie who setup corporate welfare, high taxes, and a never-ending quest for power. It is thanks to Lincoln, and the Republican Party that we have big government to this very day. This book along with Thomas Dilorenzo's book the Real Lincoln should be on the desk of every student in America. If only to show that Lincoln was nothing but a consummate politician! Far from being the "great humanitarian" Lincoln was a racist who once stated that Jesus Christ was an illegitimate child, and never proclaimed Christ as his savior, nor was he ever baptized. Mr. Masters did a very good job of helping debunk the Lincoln myth!

I read this book several years ago, and found nothing in it to refute a long-held conviction that Lincoln was a tyrant, and a crafty one at that. One of the book's major strengths centers round the fact that it delves deeply into often obscure details of Lincoln's early life and training by presenting written and verbal testimony from individuals who grew up with him or worked with him in the legal profession in Springfield. Almost without exception, Lincoln's personal friends and professional colleagues saw him as a deeply flawed individual, who would not hesitate using sophisticated forms of dishonesty and deception to accomplish a desired goal. One writer made the observation that among his contemporaries, Lincoln became known as "Honest Abe" for the same reason the tallest man in a group is often referred to as "Shorty" or the largest as "Tiny".

Mr. Masters has written a biography that definately tarnishes the mythical image of Abe Lincoln. An exhaustingly researched book, it falls into the trap of constantly deriding Lincoln for everything he did. In Mr. Masters' mind, Lincoln was a devil incarnate (which was not the case) who didn't do anything right. Anyone who reads the book should keep that in mind. The book, however, is worth the time to read in order to learn more about the 16th president of the U.S.A. Be prepared, though, for Masters' bizarre anti-religous rants.

The book definately strips away the mythic status that has been bestowed on Lincoln over the years. However, it tends to go the opposite way too far and villifies him mercilessly. The tome becomes a constant, annoying barrage. The book does make good points, however, about the Lincoln-Douglas debates and Lincoln's failures in life up to that point. Serious students of Lincoln and the Civil War should read it. The author could have been more balanced, though, and admitted that Lincoln wasn't a slobbering buffoon. Also the author would have been well advised to leave out the obsence anti-religious tone that infected many pages.

This will be short. If you are an historian, both Masters' savage and Carl Sandburg's fawning accounts are a must, but only because you are an historian. For truth, avoid both these extremes and read David Herbert Donald. If you believe that Masters' view of Lincoln is valid, then you have read nothing else substantive on Lincoln, or you are a neo-Confederate for whom truth means. "The South shall rise again."