Customer Reviews

The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln (American Presidency (Univ of Kansas Paperback))

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Any student that is interested in the Civil War or President Lincoln will enjoy this stimulating and highly readable account on a very important presidency. Phillip Shaw Paludan makes a strong case that Lincoln's two goals, saving the Union and ending slavery, were one and the same. There's a very interesting chapter on Lincoln's early reconstruction plan, the ten percent plan, that began in Louisiana in late 1863. This book is highly reccomended, whether for scholars or the general reader.

Like one of the previous reviewers, I too have been a previous student of Professor Paluden at the University of Kansas. I count him as one of the instructors that have fueled a passion in me to study the civil war period. Unlike the previous reviewer, I have had the benefit of having read this book before offering an opinion. Prof. Paluden offers an extremely well researched account of the civil war presidency of Lincoln. This work includes statistics and facts you simply cannot get from documentaries or other accounts. He correctly paints Lincoln as a master politician and cuts through the mythology of the man. Was Lincoln morally opposed to slavery...yes. Was he willing to run on an abolitionist platform?? Hell no, not and get elected during that time period. Paluden's real gift is painting a picture of the period and making folks realize just how important politics was in the 19th Century to all Americans (80-90% voter turnout). Unlike the previous reviewer, I have never noted the negative side of Prof. Paluden. He does have an ego, but, like has been said of his subject "no great man was ever modest". Thanks for a wonderful book professor. (Jayhawk Class of 1995).

As the title indicates, this is not a biography of Abraham Lincoln. It is, instead, a narrow, but detailed and incisive study of Lincoln's exercise of executive power between his election in 1860 and his assassination in 1865. This is important because, as author Philip Shaw Paludan explains: "No president had larger challenges than Abraham Lincoln." And Paludan proceeds to state the obvious, that Lincoln was "responsible for two enormous accomplishments that are part of folk legend as well as fact. He saved the Union and he freed the slaves." No other president did so much in so little time, and Paludan explains why. As a result, within its limited confines, this book is excellent!

Paludan demonstrates in the chapter entitled "Assembling the Cast: Winter 1860-61," that Lincoln, as president-elect, was a shrewd politician. According to Paludan: "Lincoln could be effective only if he unified the six-year-old Republican party," so one of his first appointments was "his strongest party rival," William Seward, Senator from New York, as secretary of state. As political payback for delivering Pennsylvania to the Republicans in 1860, Lincoln was obliged to appoint the notoriously-corrupt Simon Cameron Secretary of War. To counter that stench, Lincoln named as his secretary of the navy Connecticut newspaper editor Gideon Welles, who "had a glowing reputation for honesty." Within a year, Cameron also proved to be incompetent, and, in 1862, Lincoln replaced him with Edwin Stanton, who proved to be not only a man of great integrity but a very capable manager as well. It proved to be one of the most talented cabinets in American history, although Paludan makes clear that its operations were not always harmonious, most notably during the "cabinet crisis" of December 1862.

With most of the executive departments in capable hands, Lincoln "involved himself actively in matters of strategy," claiming "`war power' authority to use his office to the limits." Lincoln's focus on military affairs was essential because the Civil War generally went badly for the Union for the first year. Paludan ably demonstrates that even while Lincoln struggled to find generals who had both the talents and temperament to be successful, the Union was "forging the resources of war," which eventually proved decisive. Gen. George McClellan was a brilliant military administrator but proved much too cautious in the field, appalled by the "mangled corpses and the poor suffering wounded. Lincoln eventually lost confidence in McClellan, and he had to be replaced. One of McClellan's eventual successors, Gen. George Meade, won the great victory at Gettysburg in July 1863, but the Union did fully gain the initiative in the field until Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, who won an equally great victory at Vicksburg, Mississippi almost on the same day, was appointed general in chief in March 1864.

Lincoln's original war aim was merely to restore the Union. But the costs, human and material, of the war's first two years, made eradication of slavery a necessity. Following the battle of Antietam in September 1862, which was a "tactical draw but a strategic victory" for the Union, Lincoln announced the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. The issue then became: What was to be done with the former slaves? In December, Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment for the federal government to pay to colonize any blacks who wished to emigrate, but blacks "rejected it, abolitionists had condemned it," and this "doubtful solution" was beyond the practical realities of the time. Even while the war continued to rage, the prospective problems of reconstruction never were far from Lincoln's mind, and, according to Paludan, this difficult issue increasingly divided the president from radical Republicans.

Paludan writes that, while the radicals favored confiscation of land which had prospered from slave labor, Lincoln believed in "peaceful, gradual, compensated emancipation." Lincoln opposed the harsh remedy of confiscation and believed that the Constitution permitted him to free the slaves only "in places where war was being made." The Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 potentially freed 3 million slaves but did not mention colonization or compensated emancipation. Nevertheless, the emancipation issue proved controversial. Solidly Republican New England remained largely committed to the war, but, according to Paludan: "Especially in the regions of the Middle West settled from the South and in cities where job competition existed between the races, people resented the idea of fighting in order to free blacks."

Equally controversial was the Emancipation Proclamation's "arming of black freedom fighters." According to Paludan, "Lincoln and his party clearly were committed to Union and to emancipation and to the belief that the two were linked indissolubly by the need for black soldiers." Almost 180,000 black troops were serving in Union armies by the end of the war. Lincoln was very conscious of the importance of maintaining the national moral, and, in Paludan's view, northern whites increasingly recognized the benefits of having black soldiers defend the Union.

According to Paludan, the Union's victory was in large part a result of Lincoln's "devotion to and mastery of the political-constitutional institutions of his time." Some Civil War buffs and many general readers are likely to find this book rather dry because it focuses on the science of politics. But, as Paludan writes, the preservation of the Union "was achieved chiefly through an extraordinary outreach of national authority." This book is an exceptionally thoughtful account of the exercise of executive power during the most serious crisis in American history.

This is not a bad book, and in fact offers a solid description and assessment of the Lincoln Administration.

Paludan describes the working of Lincoln's government well, including the personalities and major policy issues they faced. He does a good job in explaining the manueverings between Salmon P. Chase and Lincoln for dominance of the Administration and later for the 1864 Repbulican Party nomination. Also described thoroughly is Lincoln's Louisianna reconstruction plan, which gives a pretty plausible map to what reconstruction could have looked like had Booth not intervened.

I found the writing average. While the book explains the subject well enough, the prose is more workmanlike. It didn't reach the level of engrossing style other chronicler's of Lincoln and his government have.

Overall, not bad.

This book is another in the UKansas series on each American presidency. This is another good volume in this series. It is not as strong as others in the series, but it is still very good. Lincoln's administration was facing very complex times. There is little doubt as to whether that is the case. The Civil War as well as more traditional governmental problems needed to be addressed. The main problem with this book is that it focused too much on the administration of the war, to the detriment of other topics. Other issues, although less public than the war, needed to be dealt with if Lincoln was to be successful. These issues are kept in the shadows, which is problematic because there are other works covering lincoln's administration of the war. At any rate, a solid treatment of Lincoln's administration.

Paludan provides an excellent overview of the Lincoln administration. Beginning with the obvious, he notes that "No president had larger challenges than Abraham Lincoln," and that Lincoln met those challenges with two "enormous accomplishments," saving the Union and freeing the slaves.

Paludan recounts Lincoln's efforts to create a cabinet and harness the talents of its disparate individuals, the challenge of leading the largest war effort in the nation's history to that point and of finding military officers who could carry the war to a successful conclusion.

The author argues that the goals of saving the Union and freeing the slaves were inextricably linked in Lincoln's mind and he demonstrates how the President utilized his great political skills and his power as an orator to secure these objectives, often working against what seemed like very long odds.

Without Abraham Lincoln, it is entirely possible that the United States would have shattered irreparably in the 1860s, with unimaginable consequences for the people who would later inhabit the North American continent and the world beyond. Looking back with the perspective of 145 years, we take for granted the rise of the United States to the pre-eminent position it holds in the world today. Phillip Shaw Paludan reminds us that, but for Abraham Lincoln, it might never have happened.

When a good friend died his wife gave me his collection of books on the Civil War. Over the years, I have ebayed most of them, but some how, I could not bring myself to auction this book off. During a recent move, as I was packing my library, I toss this book aside to read. Wow! What a good read. Although written ten years ago, this book is strangely appropriate for our times.

Lincoln has taken a hit from the politically correct revisionist historians on two accounts: First because of his early stance on resolving the race issue (colonization), and secondly because of the limited reach of the Emancipation Proclamation (freeing only slaves in the states in active rebellion against the Union). For these reasons, modern revisionist judge Lincoln according to modern liberal standards and find him guilty of racism. Unfortunately, history is not that simple. People, at least intelligent people as Lincoln certainly was, have complex and evolving views of the critical issues of their day. Lincoln certainly did not have the hindsight that today's historians do. He was a man of his time who struggled with the issues and whose changing views on race made him a great man. It is to Paludan's credit that he refuses to give simple answers to explain the life and views of a very complex man. He shows us a complex even contradictory personality.

Especially pertinent to the current news is Paludan's analysis of Lincoln and the Supreme Court. Lincoln believed that ultimate authority in the issues before the nation was the political process, not the Supreme Court (i.e., the Dred Scott decision). Social policy was not the realm of the court, but of the congress. Lincoln saw the court having authority only on parties to the suit and perhaps as a precedent in parallel cases. But "upon vital questions affecting the whole people" American citizens could not "resign their government into the hands of judges." The same issue faces us today. The fundamental question we are facing is the same Lincoln faced: Is the role of the court to adjudicate constitutional issues or to decide social policy?

Vital to Lincoln's perception of the role of the Supreme Court was his view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. He saw the Declaration as the promise and the Constitution as the incomplete fulfillment of that promise. The inclusion of slavery into the Constitution was a political necessity to form the union (six slave states would not enter the union without it). Thus Dread Scott was the wrong decision, immoral as it were, even if the constitution included slavery. Why? Because the promise was given in the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal. Hum . . . funny thing, when today's conservatives cite the Declaration of Independence in defense of a theistic basis for our nation, liberals are quick to point out that the Declaration is not a legal document and that the Constitution, as the ultimate authority, does not mention God at all. Just a thought.


Ok, I can't help it. I have to talk about the anti-war Democrats of Lincoln's day. Paludan points out again and again that the Democrats of Lincoln's day kept up a constant litany that the war could not be won, that it would bankrupt the county, and that civil liberties were threatened. The peace activist of that day saw nothing but failure and thought that recognizing that failure made better sense than perpetuating it. Um. . . sounds familiar doesn't it. I guess some things never change.

Well, I guess I said enough. This was a great book. I could hardly put it down. Good thing I did not ebay it.

Well, first of all, I must tell everyone that I probably have a negative bias towards this book's author. The best thing I can say of this book is that curling up with it is much more pleasant than being in the same county as the author and his enormous ego. His scholarship in the book is a lot sounder than his verbal musings in the classroom, many of which are non-sensical and poorly thought-out, and his modern political musings which are often inappropiate and non-germane. One of my fondest memories is of him being made a fool of by a freshman student when he lectured for an hour on why a funeral home is called a "home". In typical PS Paludan fashion, he constructed an elaborate 19th century socio-historical explanation for what was easily explained by the student. They are called "funeral homes" because they were in caretaker's houses! Yes, Philly has a way of making the simple hard. This man almost ruined me on the study of history. I obviously would never buy this book, as I wouldn't want to see a penny go to this conceited egotist. I had this guy for a course 2 years ago and the mention of his name still makes my blood boil.