Customer Reviews

Two American Presidents

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

 

 

Where's the Beef?

With all of the attention lavished by historians on Abraham Lincoln, and with the growing number of works on Jefferson Davis, it is curious that there have been so few comparative studies of the two men. Aside from Bruce Catton's Two Roads To Fort Sumter (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), and a few scattered articles and monographs, no scholar of the Civil War has attempted a comprehensive, systematic comparison of Lincoln and Davis. Bruce Chadwick has attempted to fill this hole with The Two American Presidents.

As the title suggests, this is a dual biography, a two-track narrative which switches back and forth between Lincoln's and Davis's stories. These twin narratives are not bad history in the sense of being inaccurate or sloppy. Chadwick wrote competently and with occasional dramatic flair, he made good use of the available primary sources, and he utilized an impressive amount of newspaper research. A casual reader without much prior knowledge of the Civil War could read The Two American Presidents and come away with a basic understanding of each man's life and career.

But Chadwick really unearthed nothing new about either man; his book is for the most part merely a pedestrian rehashing of oft-told tales. His story of Lincoln follows the standard arc which one could find in a dozen other biographies: Lincoln the savvy politician and prairie lawyer with the large measure of common sense who is smarter than most everyone around him, and who is dedicated to finding a pragmatic means to the idealistic end of killing slavery and establishing a new birth of freedom. Likewise, Chadwick's Jefferson Davis is not very original: he is the Calhounian planter and Mexican war hero who never questions slavery; a principled yet rigid man who relentlessly pursues Confederate victory but is hobbled by serious character flaws and political ineptitude. Chadwick's narrative is sprightly, but in the end this is still old wine in a new bottle. It is so old, in fact, that I found very little material worthy of substantive criticism; hence the brevity of this review.

According to the book's dust jacket, Chadwick argues that "one of several reasons why the North won and the South lost can be found in the drastically different characters of the two presidents." This is perhaps a reasonable--though by no means foregone--conclusion. It is not the "fascinating new perspective" and "startling answers" the book's jacket claims; Davis Potter made this exact argument forty years ago in a widely read essay which Chadwick does not cite (see Potter, "Jefferson Davis and the Political Factors of Confederate Defeat," in David Donald, ed., Why the North Won the Civil War [New York: Collier, 1960]).

But where does Chadwick draw these conclusions, let alone support them with evidence? I have quoted the book jacket at some length because in 490 pages of text I was unable to locate anything resembling an actual argument. The Two Presidents is a comparative study with no substantive comparative analysis. Chadwick seems to have assumed that the mere placing of a mediocre biography of Davis and a mediocre biography of Lincoln within the same cover somehow constitutes an "argument," an original contribution. It does not.

Chadwick somehow missed the point of his own book. The only value such a study might possess would lie in the new light it shed on either Lincoln and Davis themselves, or on larger subjects -- presidential leadership, for example -- which are illuminated by but transcend the two men's individual stories. Chadwick did neither, and in the end wrote a book which is of little real value to serious scholars of Lincoln, Davis or the Civil War.

Reviewed by Brian Dirck, Assistant Professor of History, Anderson University . Published by H-South (September, 2000)

Copyright © 2000, H-Net, all rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission questions, please contact hbooks@h-net.msu.edu.

It seemed like such a good concept -- parallel bios of the two great antagonists of the Civil War. However, after a promising beginning, this book becomes so wildly inaccurate and in parts so "Oliver Stone-ish" that I personally will submit my copy for recycling rather than allow anyone else to read it. Some errors are errors of detail (the General commanding the Confederate troops on Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg was James Longstreet, not "Stonewall" Jackson). Some are chronological. Chadwick places Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign after the Seven Days' battles, where in reality it was the indispensible prelude. Sometimes the chronology becomes so muddled that events seem to occur twice. The way the text reads, it seems that Union General John Pope was beaten at Second Bull Run twice. And can anyone truly imagine Salmon Chase leading Union forces in the field?

I was particularly disturbed by the assertion that Ohio "Peace Democrat" Clement Vallandigham was arrested on President Lincoln's authority. Every other source I've ever seen asserts that General Burnside acted without any authority other than his own, and that he quickly received orders to arrest no other politicians and suppress no more newspapers without consulting Washington first. What evidence did Chadwick find that eluded Allen Nevins, Shelby Foote, and Stephen B. Oates (to name but three)?

When Chadwick comes to the Kilpatrick/Dahlgren raid to Richmond, things get very worrisome for anyone who's read much Civil War history (and I have). No one else that I have have read has ever asserted that the raid's purported goal of killing or kidnapping Jefferson Davis and/or other members of his administration was authorized by Abraham Lincoln himself. What evidence has Chadwick unearthed that hundreds if not thousands of other historians had never found? In addition, Chadwick is the only author that I have read that flatly pronounces the papers purportedly found on Ulric Dahlgren's body genuine. All others have at least acknowledged the possibility that they were forgeries. Robert E. Lee cautioned Jefferson Davis not to act on the discovery of the orders, stating that there were good reasons to doubt their authenticity. (For the record, incidently, Judson Kilpatrick's not-too-flattering nickname was "Kill Cavalry", not "Kill Patrick".)

I gave up on this book at page 340. My time is too precious to waste it on conspiritorial pseudo-history. I'll bet yours is , too.

Chadwick's book was rather simplistic in approach. I looked forward to possible new insights in these individials and found none. I had the pleasure (or misfortune) of attending a book reading/discussion by Bruce Chadwick. He made several mistakes in his prepared lecture, he rambled, and he said at the begginning that he "did not want to write this book." After spending an hour and a half listening to him speak, and another several hours reading his book, I also wish that he had never written this book. I would recommend that someone read individual biographies of Lincoln and Davis and come to their own conclusions.

I can make this short and sweet. This book is trash. Chadwick should stick to journalism or fiction and leave history to the historians. Definitely a lack of research or knowledge about either of the subjects. I read about 1/3 of the book and placed it in file 13.

Reading this book is liking going to a ball game to root for the home team; they lose the game but you had a good time anyway. I enjoyed the concept of a dual biography and tracing the movements of the two presidents during the Civil War years. But, after piecing together the facts, Chadwick doesn't add much depth as a writer or historian. He had an interesting game plan, but poor execution. Depending on the reader's level of Civil War study, there may be enough here to ignite an interest to read more. (It does have a great bibliography.) If you do pick up the book, be prepared for an annoying amount of misplaced facts, mistakes, and repetitive information. This book screams for an editor which it seems the publisher never provided.

A parallel life of the two great antagonists of the Civil War ought to make for an exciting book. Unfortunatly, this is not it. This project cried out for someone with the gifts andd insights of a Plutarch..or a Shelby Foote. unfortunatly, the resulting text is turgid, wooden, and lacking in philosophical depth. The struggle between Lincoln and Davis was a a struggle of Philosophies and of spiritual ideals, a clash between rival understandings of America, and even of the human condition. However, that is conveyed in this well intentioned, but flawed volume.

This book is very interesting and easy to read. There are many interesting facts about Abraham Lincoln that are woven together so that one gets an idea of what an interesting and unique person Lincoln was. His character is very nicely described. The character of Jefferson Davis is not as well revealed. I would recommend this book for a high school book report for US History.

As the subtitle says, this is a dual biography of US President Lincoln and Confederate President Jefferson Davis. The book is arranged so that equivalent periods of time are presented in consecutive chapters (eg childhood of Lincoln, then childhood of Davis, etc) with the emphasis, of course, on the Civil War years.

I found this book to be an easy read, despite several typos and some awkward syntax. There were not very many slow spots, but it never really took off, either. I am barely more than a casual Civil War buff, so I found much of the book informative. However, a more serious enthusiast may not gleam much (s)he doesn't already know. Chadwick takes pains to point out how the one-party system (which breeds factionalism) of the Confederate government limited Davis' power and effectiveness, while the North's two-party system allowed Lincoln to be much more effective; an interesting concept I hadn't thought of before. I also thought Chadwick's assessment of Northern and Southern attitudes was right on the mark (with one exception: I can't see fiercely independent poor southerners blindly following the rich planters just because "well, they're rich, they must know what's right").

I would recommend this book for those who have more than just a passing interest in the Civil War.

Mr. Chadwick has done a commendable job at laying-out a balanced account of the personality and nature of these two great men who played such a pivotal role in shaping the historical landscape of our country. He has shown remarkable skill and incite in scoping the lives of these two men during the cataclysm days of the Civil War and in relating in an interesting and unique manner the sometimes peculiar nature of those individuals most closely associated with them. As a Civil War history buff I became thoroughly engrossed in this book and found it to be a very refreshing account. I was especially intrigued with the side-by-side approach for portraying the lives of these two outstanding Americans and the times in which they lived.

This book was picked up at a 4'th of July sale just beforesailing on a long voyage to the Indian Ocean...I didn't expect much from this book. What a surprise! I found it to be perfect middle-weight reading for a long voyage (or vacation, etc.). The juxtaposition of the two presidents' lives is an extremely interesting premise. Complaint could be made that not enough was done with this, but not by me. There was enough detail in the book for me to analyse and contemplate. I don't need an author's commentaray to help me form my own opinions! A good read for anyone interested in the lives of these two great men without turgid analysis or an author's endless speculations.