Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin ~ Book Club Online

[mabel1015j]

The Book Club Online  is  the oldest  continuing book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone.  We offer cordial discussions of one book a month,  24/7 and  enjoy the company of readers from all over the world.  Everyone is welcome to join in.

Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin

"More books about Abraham Lincoln line the shelves of libraries than about any other American. Can there be anything new to say about our 16th president? Surprisingly, the answer is yes. - ..... Doris Kearns Goodwin has written an elegant, incisive study of Lincoln......." - New York Times The Team: William H. Seward Salmon P. Chase Edward Bates .........      Links: NPR Review Wilmot Proviso Dred Scott Decision Kansas-Nebraska Act Fugitive Slave Law

Discussion Leaders: Ella & PatH I wondered where Ella was for a few days! Tho't maybe she was taking a spring break! .....lol................ PatH - James Mason U is in Harrisonburg, Va in the Shenandoah Valley. Yes, it did take some searching to get past James Mason the actor. Joan - your info on AL's reasoning for suspending habeas corpus is the same story i have heard thru the yrs. I recognize that it was certainly sensible, it's just scary to consider how it can be used by other presidents who are not in as great a crisis. It's so fundamental to our system of justice. From other sources, from my high school Amer hist course - my teacher was a huge CivWar buff, so we spent most of the yr on the CW - to my watching Ken Burns series on the CW, i had the  impression that McClellan's procrastination was much grtr than the impression DKG gives it in this book. The audacity of the man is spectacular. His hubris is so over the top and then he has a great capacity for self-righteousness. Sounds a bit like Dick Cheney, only McC's is in lacking activity rather than forcing activity as DC seems to do. Both men tho appear to have absolute faith in their being right! Has anybody read a good bio on the Fremonts? It seems to me that i remember a few yrs ago of a new one. Of course, Irving STones' novel about them is wonderful and gives a different perspective on the behavior of J.C. and Jesse. Stone gives a courageous portrait of them both. I think Jesse Fremont is one of the more interesting women in Am history. Stone's portrayal of her trip across the isthmus of Panama is harrowing. The Fremont crises gives us another picture of how difficult communication was before our present instant media. I'm always amazed at how much traveling people did when it was so difficult and time-consuming and there were no planes to jump on and to hop across the country/ocean and back. [[color=blackI looked up picayune in Encarta: surprising 1. trifling: of very little importance   2. small-minded: tending to fuss about unimportant things and to be childishly spiteful now why would a newspaper be given such a name??? I can't even comment on the grief of ML and AL. DKG lays it out so well. A couple of you have commented about Goodwin's writing style. I first fell in love w/ it when reading No Ordinary Time - FDR & ER during the war years. She had so much detail in that book, but made it read like a novel, it was so interesing. At this time i am also reading The WAges of Fame, a novel by Tho Fleming about the Jacksonian era. It's interesting to read ToR and WoF at the same time because the writing is so similar. Of course, Fleming is also an historian, but has written many novels, including some for teens. O.K. - that's enough for now, sorry to go on so long................jean

[Jonathan]

Joan, that is a most interesting wrinkle on the habeas corpus business. Yes, I seem to remember reading about the imminent vote in Maryland that had Lincoln worried about a secessionist outcome. To prevent the legislators from convening and voting by arrest and detention, for political reasons, seems very un-Linconesque to me. That would make him a tyrant. Surely that wasn't the kind of Union he was trying to preserve. Then again, there were 4,000,000 slaves waiting for freedom and liberty. It seems like an irony to be overly concerned about the unlawful imprisonment of a few Marylanders for the duration.

So that's where Edmond Wilson got his title Patriotic Gore. From the Maryland state song. Very interesting.

[PatH]

Jean: "From other sources,.......i had the  impression that McClellan's procrastination was much grtr than the impression DKG gives it in this book."

Good grief!  And here I was thinking that maybe DKG didn't care for McClellan and was laying it on a bit thick.  He must have been really intolerable.  Of course what's really unfair is that she quotes his own words.  He was one of those people who is very sure of his own importance and, when things go wrong, it's always someone else's fault.

It surprises me that he was so popular with his troops.

[mabel1015j]

He was popular w/ his trps. I think he convinced them that he was looking out for them like a father. And it probably was nice to hear that in their circumstances. ............... jean

[PatH]

Come to think of it, if I were a soldier, maybe I wouldn't mind if my commander didn't want to send me into battle.

[PatH]

The cottage on the grounds of the soldier's retirement home where Lincoln found a peaceful retreat during the summers has been restored to look the way it did then, and is now open to the public.  That "cottage" is a fair bit larger than my house.

http://www.lincolncottage.org/

The Soldiers Home is still functioning as it did then, as a retirement home for soldiers (airmen too, now) who are disabled or have 20 years service.  There's a waiting list--I wonder what your chances are of actually getting in.

[PatH]

Then again, there were 4,000,000 slaves waiting for freedom and liberty. It seems like an irony to be overly concerned about the unlawful imprisonment of a few Marylanders for the duration.

Jonathan, the way I heard the story, he just locked them up for a little while, until Maryland had safely voted to stay in the Union.  I'd love to find some documentation for the story.  I heard it from my husband, who was a great Lincoln fan and had read a lot about him.  Goodwin doesn't mention it.

[Jonathan]

It doesn't take much googling to realize what an issue Lincoln's use of habeas corpus still is. Still very controversial and hotly debated. Now, as well as then, in 1861, as the Civil War got underway. There were even those, I was surprised to read, who, as it was put:

'many Northern newspapers, including Horace Greeley's, which hoped for (Chief Justice) Taney's arrest.'

Someone asked, in a post, which of the main characters in this history  would make a good,  additional biographical read. I'm trying to decide between Kate Chase and Horace Greeley.

Pat, it's as you say, Goodwin doesn't mention it. The use of habeas corpus to prevent a secession vote in Maryland. I can only think that she didn't put much stock into it, and not that she was trying to spare Lincoln's reputation. She gives a reasonable view of why Lincoln availed himself of the measure, given the military emergency.

[PatH]

Jonathan, I'm coming to realize what a strict constitutionalist Lincoln was, and I see how he justified the suspension of habeas corpus: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it." (Constitution)  That's how he salved his conscience, but I still don't care for it.

[Ella Gibbons]

JONATHAN would like to read about Kate Chase and Horace Greeley!  Yes, so would I.  Also I want to know more about Seward, I would image there is a biography of him, don't you think?  And Montgomery Blair certainly deserves a biography, he and his family.  I'll have to do some digging, see what I can come up with.

These are so many fascinating people that Goodwin writes about; people we wouldn't have known about if we had not read the book and yet they impacted the time they lived in and Lincoln's administration.   I think Horace Greeley started THE NEW YORKER and perhaps we could find a history of that magazine and there he would be?  I've never subscribed; my nephew thinks I am don't keep up with the literary world because of this lack!

Wouldn't you say that Seward was possibly Lincoln's best friend in this period of his life?  They had difference but always came to an agreement and I remember reading about Seward's admiration for LIncoln.  Everyone associated with him had this same remarkable esteem for his character. 

And Obama seems to be engendering much of the same; stern when needed, charming when possible, using humor.

But do either Lincoln or any president have friendships while in office.  The kind of discussion where you are free to say anything on your mind with no fear of reprisal of any sort or being quoted and if your friend disagrees, you "have at it."   I don't know.

[PatH]

But do either Lincoln or any president have friendships while in office.  The kind of discussion where you are free to say anything on your mind with no fear of reprisal of any sort or being quoted and if your friend disagrees, you "have at it."   I don't know.

I don't know either.  Lincoln seems to have approached it with Seward, though.  One thing that surprised me was his friendship with Cameron.  Lincoln only reluctantly made Cameron Secretary of War, and had to remove him because of his inefficiency and corruption.  But Lincoln generously made some face-saving concessions to Cameron, and C became "one of the most intimate and devoted of Lincoln's personal friends" (p 413).  Not what you'd expect, given Cameron's principles and Lincoln's rigid honesty.

[mabel1015j]

From other sources, from my high school Amer hist course - my teacher was a huge CivWar buff, so we spent most of the yr on the CW - to my watching Ken Burns series on the CW, i had the  impression that McClellan's procrastination was much grtr than the impression DKG gives it in this book.

I take that quote back.....................i hadn't read about the Pennisula Campaign when i wrote that and i had forgotten that it was the PC that agenerated the most procrastination. For some reason i had remembered it to have been the campaign in northern Va.

Jonathan and Pat - i think the First Lady has often had the role of the "friend" that presidents could be open with.  Apparently Mamie Eisenhower was not the least bit interested in anything political - but the Roosevelt FL's and everyone since Lady Bird, except maybe Pat Nixon, seems to have been very interested and  the sounding board for the President. They were sometimes the most honest about their responses also. Mary L seems to have had a varied experience in that role. Perhaps in their young married life and at the beginning of their WHouse life when she entertained politicains and seemed to enjoy it. But once her grieve overwhelmed her, i get the sense that she was not much interested in anything. He doesn't seem to have much trouble being open w/ a couple of these guys.

[mabel1015j]

From other sources, from my high school Amer hist course - my teacher was a huge CivWar buff, so we spent most of the yr on the CW - to my watching Ken Burns series on the CW, i had the  impression that McClellan's procrastination was much grtr than the impression DKG gives it in this book.

I take that quote back.....................i hadn't read about the Pennisula Campaign when i wrote that and i had forgotten that it was the PC that agenerated the most procrastination. For some reason i had remembered it to have been the campaign in northern Va.

Jonathan and Pat - i think the First Lady has often had the role of the "friend" that presidents could be open with.  Apparently Mamie Eisenhower was not the least bit interested in anything political - but the Roosevelt FL's and everyone since Lady Bird, except maybe Pat Nixon, seems to have been very interested and  the sounding board for the President. They were sometimes the most honest about their responses also. Mary L seems to have had a varied experience in that role. Perhaps in their young married life and at the beginning of their WHouse life when she entertained politicains and seemed to enjoy it. But once her grieve overwhelmed her, i get the sense that she was not much interested in anything. He doesn't seem to have much trouble being open w/ a couple of these guys.

[mabel1015j]

"From other sources, from my high school Amer hist course - my teacher was a huge CivWar buff, so we spent most of the yr on the CW - to my watching Ken Burns series on the CW, i had the  impression that McClellan's procrastination was much grtr than the impression DKG gives it in this book. "

I take that quote back.....................i hadn't read about the Pennisula Campaign when i wrote that and i had forgotten that it was the PC that agenerated the most procrastination. For some reason i had remembered it to have been the campaign in northern Va.

Jonathan and Pat - i think the First Lady has often had the role of the "friend" that presidents could be open with.  Apparently Mamie Eisenhower was not the least bit interested in anything political - but the Roosevelt FL's and everyone since Lady Bird, except maybe Pat Nixon, seems to have been very interested and  the sounding board for the President. They were sometimes the most honest about their responses also. Mary L seems to have had a varied experience in that role. Perhaps in their young married life and at the beginning of their WHouse life when she entertained politicains and seemed to enjoy it. But once her grieve overwhelmed her, i get the sense that she was not much interested in anything. He doesn't seem to have much trouble being open w/ a couple of these guys.

[mabel1015j]

Question #1 - would i have waited longer to fire McC -NO!

I worked for Dept of Army in the 80's and 90's and it just astonishes me how insubordinate he was. I wonder what Harry Truman had to say about McC. .......I am also surprised about the criticism of AL's policies/behaviors by the people around him. If you talk to people who work in D.C. today they are often very careful about what they are saying and who they are talking about and to whom they are talking. ................Now, some of DKG' s sources are the letters to families, which makes it more understandable, but not all of them. Maybe D.Cer's were not as sensitive, or as worried about their career  in the 19th century. ................... jean

[Ella Gibbons]

"If you talk to people who work in D.C. today they are often very careful about what they are saying and who they are talking about and to whom they are talking. ................Now, some of DKG' s sources are the letters to families, which makes it more understandable, but not all of them."

That bad is it, JEAN!    Just in public, or in private homes?   Most of us here in the Midwest talk about these people openly, critically, or admiringly.

Women are sounding boards, Jean?  Are you saying that they are more to be trusted with gossip than the men in Washington?  Hahahaaaa

The Homestead Act of 1862, although a good idea, was a failed experiment by the government; it promoted corruption, land erosion by small farms causing the dust bowl, and, of course, we would not have had all those movies about cattle ranching and the farmers,  the latter  being of little substance, just my own speculation.

The Morrill Act of 1862  gave each state 30,000 acres of public land for each Senator and Representative. These numbers were based on the census of 1860.   The grant was a major force for higher education in America.

Good things to come out of the Civil War years.  Interesting that Congressmen had time to enact such laws in a time of peril for the country.

More to come.......

Some good laws by Congress, some not so good, but isn't it wonderful such a system of government.  I have always been in awe of the Consitution and the founders of our country.  I'm a patriot!!!

[JoanK]

I was surprised to see that the first income tax law came out of the civil War.

On Lincoln and McClellan: I was surprised at the question. I would have thought that the question would be "did Lincoln wait to long to fire McClellan?" I think many other historians have thought so. It is possible to argue that if he had faught in situations where we now know he had a large numerical advantage, and advanced toward Richmond, that the war would have been shortened and much bloodshed and misery avoided.

Goodwin is much harsher on McClellan than any other historian I have read. They all agree that he was a bad fighter, but don't necessarily see him as a bad man. Goodwin backs up her assertions with quotes, but perhaps her picture is one-sided. Perhaps every historian finds characters that they can't stand, and with Goodwin, it seems to be McClellan. For others, it has been Mary Lincoln, but Goodwin treats her with respect and understanding.

I can understand why his men loved him. He was known for his skill in providing the equipment his soldiers needed in tough situations. Shortly after MC is gone, AL reviews the troups and finds them healthy, living comfortably, and even with new uniforms. He took good care of them.

[JoanK]

In a perverse way, the story of the suspension of habeus corpus gave me some confidence in our country. Yes, or president can take our liberties away FOR A WHILE. But once the initial fear had passed, the people came back and said NO! The same thing happened with the Alien and Sedition Act under Adams. He passed a law that anyone criticizing the government could be imprisoned. But the next president quickly repealed it.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". Any government might do bad things, and it is our job as citizens to stand up over and over again and say "No". So far in America, we have done so. Some people think of their country as a parent, who is always right, no matter what. No, our copuntry is our child, and as parents, it is our job to correct it whenever it does wrong. Just as this produces a good child, it is the only way to have a good country.

[Ella Gibbons]

HI JOAN!

Another patriot and a fan of the wisdom of our founding fathers!  " No, our country is our child, and as parents, it is our job to correct it whenever it does wrong.

I'm not sure how the Constitution is worded to give that impression of the parent/child, but we have it don't we?  Elections are one example, free speech, free press is another, etc. etc.  The Bill of Rights.  How fortunate we are!

Hindsight is easy!  Firing McClellan was not, he had many influential friends in Washington.  The example of Truman firing MacArthur comes to mind.  I have never read a biography of Truman, I know David McCullough wrote an excellent one and it was discussed on Seniornet but I was out of town at the time.  Both generals were popular with the Army and had excellent reputations.  What of the generals in Iraq before General Petraeus?

A president running a war is a very difficult busines, one of balance I would think, don't you?  Fortunately just one guy at a time has to do it right or wrong, and history will be the judge. Reading of great military leaders would be fascinating, but probably tedious, I don't know.  How did they get power?  How long did they stay on top, etc.

Back to Lincoln later, I'm off to do errands for the day.

[mabel1015j]

The "seesaw" of events in history is interesting. At one point the cabinet is so contentious they stop having mtgs and then when attacked from the Comm of 9, they all circle and protect Seward. I wonder if that "seesaw" can only happen i a democracy? It intriques me how our election of presidents has gone from one party, or philosopy, to another, back and forth. It's most notable in the presidential elections of the  last 60 yrs: after the crises of the Depression and WWII and wrapping up WWII under Truman, the electorate choose a seemingly calm, in-control-grandfather. Then we choose a young glamourous, exciting Kenndy. After the upheavals of the late 60's we choose a law-and-order man. Then after WAtergate we choose a man who would never lie to us, a soft-spoken southerner. AFter being "humiliated" by the Iranians, we choose a man who was optimistic and very pro-American. But his vice-presidnet when president seemed out of touch, so we choose a brilliant, but down-home, everyday kind of guy, etc. etc. You can write your own story about the last two 

I never understood why the people who were for colonization tho't that any other country would take in 3 million people and let them set up a colony when the "colonizers"  didn't want to have them here. It never seemed to me to be  a well tho't out idea.

I would like to have known Pres Obama before he read ToR. He seems to be following so much of what L tho't/did. On pg 469 L's statement "w/ public sentiment, nothing can fail; w/out it nothing can succed." Certainly O is following that path, did he understand that before he read ToR, or did he absorb that from L? Is he just naturally so much aligned in his thinking and acting w/ L or has he learned from his study of him? The way he has handled the various factions at the G-20 sounds so like L.................is he channeling AL? Where's Shirley McClain when we need answers? 

I loved Seward statement about growing old and just when you learn about people and how they behave and how you can respond, you are no longer in position to use the info.................i have had that tho't often............."boy, if i'd have only known that 40 yrs ago!"..........now i try to pass my knowledge on to my children and younger people hoping they can use it.

I did learn 20 yrs ago about military jealousy. When i worked at Ft Dix, at one point the CofStaff was a very competent 6'7" colonel who had on his staff as the cmdr of one of the brigades a 6'5" colonel who by time-served out ranked the CofS, however, because of position the CofS was now his boss. At mtgs the CoS sat at the head of the table, of course. The bgrd cmdr sat to his left. It was a constant spat, otherwise known in the military as a p....ing contest. With 40 high priced directors sitting in the room, the two of them argued about every issue. If one said the sun is shining the other would say "only for the moment, it's turning cloudy." It was a joke and a waste of time and money. Both of them, BTW, were very smart, competent men, they just had this military rivalry going all the time.

I also love the quirks of history like the courier wrapping the cigars in Lee's orders and their being found.

And i am frustrated by the hyperbole of the press - of yesteryear and of today. Charging L w/ inciting an insurrection. Charging O w/ being a socialist. ............ it does surprise me that thruout our history Blacks have been so well behaved in spite of the horrible oppression, misbehavior of the justice system toward them, the snides and slights they have had to endure and the lynchings and murders. The fact that they have been responsible for the beginnings of very few riots or individual assassinations is quite remarkable to me. .......jean

[lucky]

Lincoln’s attitude towards blacks is not surprising.  How many of us grew up with prejudicial views of blacks?  Not too many years ago the arch  conservatist Charles Murray wrote a book called  “The Bell Curve” in which he argued that the intellectual capability of Blacks were highly deficient.  If we, more than a hundred years after the Civil War, still clung to these archaic notions, what can we expect of a l9th century statesman, when the disciplines of psychology, sociology and social history were unknown?  We are all to a greater of lesser degree the products of the society in which we live.  Blacks were kept in ignorance, not allowed education, and even after the Civil War, only received an inferior education.  Educated blacks, according to the landed aristocracy of the south, made poor field hands.  It is not surprising that white society looked upon blacks as inferior.  More than a hundred years later they were still viewed this way.  Lincoln did what he thought was best, and perhaps blacks would have been better off on an island of their own rather than living in a mangled south, viciously destroyed by the Union troops, a south that faced poverty and destitution and one that offered very little freedom to the freed slaves.  As late as the l930’s their condition in the deep south was little better than that of a slave.  And for whatever reason, there were more than 130 lynchings in the ‘30s.   Congress had come up with legislation to outlaw lynchings but the Dixiecrats informed Roosevelt that if such a law passed, they would veto his social welfare programs, and without their support such programs could not go through.  Can we really say that Lincoln was wrong in his thinking?   Marcus Garvey, in the l920’s called for the return to Africa of his black countrymen.  Perhaps he was influenced by Lincoln.
 

[Ella Gibbons]

WHAT GREAT POSTS, JEAN AND LUCKY!

I love book discussions!

I love reading posts like that! 

Sincerity, personal opinions on history, opposing posts, posts of trustworthiness, conversation.  I would love to meet you both, everyone in this discussion, we would make a great round table.

JEAN, me, too, how many times I have said I wish I had known that when I was young!!!  And, as you pointed out, the nation changes every four or eight years wanting someone different, the brash for the polished, the young for the old, the old and wise for the young, the humorist for the staid.  Great fodder for the media, isn't it?  And there is so media today, whew!!

We are all to a greater of lesser degree the products of the society in which we live.  Blacks were kept in ignorance, not allowed education, and even after the Civil War, only received an inferior education.  Educated blacks, according to the landed aristocracy of the south, made poor field hands.  It is not surprising that white society looked upon blacks as inferior.  More than a hundred years later they were still viewed this way.  Lincoln did what he thought was best, and perhaps blacks would have been better off on an island of their own rather than living in a mangled south,

You are possibly right, LUCKY; no education, ignorant field hands, what could be expected of them as independent workman and businessmen?  But I can't agree that they would have been better off in an island of their own - one such as Haiti?  I doubt many black people today would agree with your opinion, but it would be interesting to have that discussion wouldn't it? 

Thanks for your opinion.

Isn't Seward an interesting fellow?  He hit upon the idea of the public makng an appeal for more troops for the war, rather than Lincoln calling for a recruitment during a time of defeat and panic among the population.  It isn't the same situation exactly, but my mind goes to the public demanding better weapons and, particularly, armored-plated trucks for our soldiers in the Iraq war.  The public demands and the government responds.  It works.

[JoanK]

Interesting how our view of things changes over the generations. Lincoln felt the war was necessary to prove that a government based on freedom can survive. Would it have occurred to any of us that our government might not survive?

[PatH]

At first "The Bell Curve" got a better reception than it deserved, partly because most of the people who read it didn't know any statistics.  If you did, and looked at Murray's data in the back of the book, you saw that his numbers were pathetic--sloppy and probably dishonest.  His correlations were poor, his validity tests way below meaningful, etc.  In short, his numbers didn't prove a thing.  Since the whole argument of the book was based on his numbers, the whole book was meaningless.  Stephen Jay Gould wrote a wonderful revue in the New Yorker in which he analyzed the data in detail and showed clearly how worthless the arguments in the book were.

[mabel1015j]

We need to be careful about making the South the scapegoat in mid-20th centruy race relations. I grew up in south central Pennsylvania, about 20 mi north of the Mason-Dixon line and in the 1950's and 1960's Blacks lived in a segregated section of town, could get few jobs in town, mostly servile ones, were not welcome in most of the clubs and bars - maybe all, i wan't in the bars much at the time - were not welcome in mainstream churches in town and were not welcome in most white people's homes. I heard the N....word in polite company. ............................yes, we are the product of our society, but we don't have to stay the product of our upbringing. It surprises me that AL, who studied every thing was so unschooled about slavery. By the time he got into the presidency he had been in contact w/ people who believed slavery was an abomination and that no one should be treated in the way slaves were treated. He'd surely heard those conversations. He may not have been in contact w/ any Blacks who he could equate w/ his team of rivals, but he'd surely been in contact w/ whites who were as ignorant - in the truest sense of that word - as unschooled slaves. How could he not have seen that these were all human beings, w/ human feelings and human rights?

Yes! Lincoln was wrong in his thinking! And so were the pro-slavery, racist people who were in the society of the time, and so were the people of the 50's and 60's in my hometown, and so are the people today who are prejudiced against any people based on the person's ethnicity. Just because we might understand why people believe what they believe, does't mean that they are right in their belief.

Just an FYI, CSPAN 3 is at the moment showing a 2004 panel about biography and history which includes Joe Ellis, Annette Gordon-Reed and other historians you may know. It's directed at the question of whether biography is really history, is it good history, do biographers fall in love w/ their subjects? It's very interesting. It may be repeated later today or tomorrow.........................jean

[Ella Gibbons]

JEAN, I turned it on immediately, THANKS.  Very interesting.  And now...............

a symposium on Lincoln.  How timely!!!

[mabel1015j]

Cspan3 for this hour 2-3pm is having a discussion as L as a Cmdr in Chief and this evening, starting at 8pm and continuing thru the evening they are doing AL on Cspan1, it says they will be doing L on cspan1 "weekly" on Sat nites, i don't know for how long. And they apparently have links to other AL sources. I haven't looked at them yet ...............

Here is a link to the cspan schedules
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=schedule         

if you put the cursor on any block of program, you will get a description of the progam, or the book, in most cases................
jean

[JoanK]

Looks like the biography program will be broadcast here in CA at one on CSPAN2. i DON'T GET CSPAN3 (WINSOM told me she had to fight to get it on her cable TV even though it's a free service).  I'll try to catch it. C-SPAN has made itself the station of the Lincoln bi-cenntenial, and I've caught several discussions, but wasn't organized enough to get their schedule. Thanks.

[Ella Gibbons]

Wasn't that great, JEAN.  Sorry you didn't get to hear it, JOAN, but as you said, there have been others and there will be others.

DID ANY OF YOU HEAR ANYTHING NEW?

New phrases, yes, interesting talks.  One of them said "All the evidence about Lincoln is old, but the questions are new." 

And one said Lincoln changes with the times one lives in and that's true I think.  One of the professors (most of them were profs at Columbia, I think) said we all see ourselves through the lens of Lincoln.  There are so many Lincolns.  The prairie fellow, the poor and the ignorant country fellow, the seeker of knowledge, the political Lincoln, the compromiser, and on and on. 

One professor talked about Lincoln and his Cooper Union speech referring to slavery and said historians do not give Lincoln credit for his ability to learn; his continuing evolvment of knowledge.  When black men joined the military and began to fight Lincoln immediately understood their equality and their fight for their country; all of his ideas of colonization were abolished.

I must look up a book about Henry Clay who hated slavery and yet kept all his slaves because he needed them.  Have you read anything about him?

[Ella Gibbons]

What of our rivals about this time?

Seward, like Lincoln, was self-assured, with a lasting cheerful countenance.  Great speaker, he loved to tell stories.  Wouldn't he and Lincoln have a great time together!  Wouldn't you liked to have been a mouse in the corner when those two were spending a couple of hours together. Didn't I read that Lincoln would walk over to Seward's house at times for company, imagine a president doing that today?

But there were problems in the Cabinet.

Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, was often physically ill from what he perceived at the burdens of his office, and  he was responsible for the legislation financing the Army and getting it through Congress, but he got the job done; despite his gloom and his constant threats to resign Lincoln forgave him and soothed his feelings.

I don't recall reading much about Attorney General Bates lately; apparently he is causing no problems for Lincoln?

----------------------------------------------

In my opinion from reading this section of the book the background for Lincoln's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation was the possibility of 1) depriving the southern plantation owners of slave labor; 2) giving freedom to all black people which he had constitutional authority over,  and 3) recruiting the black men for the army which badly needed new soldiers.

It was a bold move at the time and it put Lincoln’s reelection in jeopardy.  Many thought it would prolong the war, fearing the South would fight harder and longer.

What do you think? 

Please correct me if I have it wrong, it's not exactly spelled out in the book. 

---------------------------------

And I am still not sure what started the Civil War other than the states rebelling over the laws enacted by the Congress over their rights to slavery in the newly created states. 

One of the professors on C-Span made the statement that the Civil War did not start over the problem of slavery.  Then what?

[PatH]

Ella: "One of the professors on C-Span made the statement that the Civil War did not start over the problem of slavery.  Then what?"

Then what indeed, Ella.  He should have said.

[PatH]

Jean: "How could he not have seen that these were all human beings, w/ human feelings and human rights?"

Ella: "When black men joined the military and began to fight Lincoln immediately understood their equality and their fight for their country; all of his ideas of colonization were abolished."

One of the surprises for me in this book was learning that for Lincoln, the war was primarily about preserving the Union rather than about slavery.  So what were Lincoln’s personal feelings?  He seems to have always felt that slavery was evil and wrong, but that, since it was allowed by the Constitution, we were stuck with it for a while, and the correct course was to keep it from spreading and let it die out naturally.  He also felt that any man in this country, black or white, should have an equal chance to make a living for himself and to better himself as his abilities allowed.

Lincoln was good at waiting for the right moment to do things, and the Peninsula campaign gave him the chance and provided him with the legal excuse he needed.  The Confederates were using slaves to great advantage in the camps.  "If the rebels were divested of their slaves, who would then be free to join the Union forces, the North could gain a decided advantage.  Seen in this light, emancipation could be considered a military necessity, a legitimate exercise of the president’s constitutional war powers."  (p 462)

When he finally signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he said "I never, in my life, felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper.  If my name ever goes into history it will be for this act, and my whole soul is in it."  He then waited a moment to unstiffen his hand (he had been at a long reception) to make sure that his signature would be firm, and not look hesitant.  (p 499)

It’s still not easy to figure out how he felt personally about blacks, but his feelings obviously evolved after he saw them in action and got to know them.

[Ella Gibbons]

Yes, Goodwin talks a lot about Lincoln wanting to preserve the Union, but why was the Union in jeopardy?  What happened to it?  Why did the states secede?

[Ella Gibbons]

CHAPTERS 20-26

This is our final week for the book and we have decided to throw the remaining chapters open for discussion with no structure at all, no questions to consider.

We hope that you will ask some questions for us to consider in our discussion.

These chapters for the most part describe the victories and defeats of the war, the  personalities involved, and Lincoln’s campaign and re-election for his second term.

And ends, of course, as we all know, in the tragic death of one of our most beloved president.

What shall we take away with us after reading this book?

As one of the professors on C-Span said yesterday, most readers remember only 10% of a book.  I am hoping for 5% anyway and hoping that I may know the final answer to my question as to what provoked the states to secede and what could have been done, if anything, to prevent this terrible war.

Perhaps there is no answer?  I know the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter and the war began, but there has to be a better answer than that.

I think I'll go digging around for an answer.

[Jonathan]

Jean: 'I would like to have known Pres Obama before he read ToR.'

That's an interesting observation. Just what lessons in statesmanship and political smarts can one learn from studying Lincoln's career? Was he in fact a great leader?

Pat: 'Lincoln was good at waiting for the right moment to do things.'

We were also reminded, by Jean, of Lincoln's famous words: 'with public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.'

Pat, again: 'When he finally signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he said "I never, in my life, felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper.  If my name ever goes into history it will be for this act, and my whole soul is in it."  He then waited a moment to unstiffen his hand (he had been at a long reception) to make sure that his signature would be firm, and not look hesitant.'  (p 499)

With all due respect for Lincoln's character, it took a lot to bring him to that signing ceremony. He seemed almost afraid to move on the slavery issue. Preserving the Union must have seemed a safer issue, more easily made appealing, if 'mystical memories' were invoked, than the constitutionally supported slavery institution. Lincoln wasn't certain about 'public sentiment' on that. Hence his reluctance to move on it, to provide leadership. In fact it took a lot of pressure, like the two generals, Fremont and Baker(?) who were setting slaves free in their military command jurisdictions.

It all reminds me a bit of McClellan's reluctance to move forward. As objectives, it seemed just as difficult for Lincoln to go for emancipation as it was for McClellan to go for Richmond. Poor leadership in both cases. As for the war, it took Sherman and Grant to win it for Lincoln.

But Lincoln did win the big one by continuing to hold high the torch lit by the founding fathers, to look for greater meanings in the search for freedom and liberty and a strong republic.

[JoanK]

It is hard for us now to understand the feelings of white people about slavery. Many abolitionists felt that slavery was wrong, but still did not see Blacks as people like them. For example, in Kansas, many who faught to make Kansas a free state also wanted to pass a law which would not allow any ex-slaves to enter the state. They knew abstractly that slavery was wrong, but were unable to see themselves dealing personally with any of the ex-slaves on an equal footing. I imagine Lincoln's initial feelings were much the same; he must have absorbed all the surrounding culture picturing blacks as ignorant savages. When he had actually met ex-slaves, and seen what they could do, he changed his mind.

[mabel1015j]

Ella - "STATES RIGHTS' - that was the slogan used as to why the CW  began. IMO you can break that down into less glorious words like "authority" - who is going to have it? -and "power" - whose is going to prevail? Some states, notably, S Carolina, threatened to seceed because they had a beef w/ the federal gov't  during the Jackson administration. J made it very clear he would not allow that and would send the U.S. army to prevent it. Since J had a major reputation as a general and was a southerner to boot, S.C. backed down. But the issue had not been decided about how much authority the federal gov't had over the states and how much leeway, aka freedom, the states had within the fed'l gov't orders/policies. At that point it had as much to do w/ tariff issues as w/ slavery issues -  both of which revolve around economics. What might the fed'l gov't have to say regarding my "property" and my business/profit? Sound familiar? Is this an ongoing issue thruout history?

The "umbrella" ongoing discussion is the battle between freedom and security. How much can the gov't do to keep us secure - physically, economically, etc. - before they have infringed on our freedoms? Can they make us wear helmets? Can they confiscate my hand lotion and knitting needles at the airport. Can they assess tariffs on European products to protect New Englands' product prices,  that will then raise prices for southerners' imported products?  Can they take away our property - land for highways? - slaves to protect their human rts?  Can they listen in on anybody's telephone conversations because i MIGHT be a terrorist and they have to protect the rest of the country from me? Can they say that people have the rt to sit any place on the bus, or eat in any public restaurant, or buy a house in my neighborhood, or go to my public school even if i am fearful of having some of those people near me? Can it raise my taxes to provide quality education for everybody in the country, because that makes the country more productive and safer? Can they raise my taxes in order to bail out AIG to keep the country safe economically?

 This has always been the discussion in any democracy where people expect that they have inherent, or declared, individual rts and freedom from their gov'ts. This is why we have a Bill of Rts in our constitution and why more of the cases that have come to the Supreme Court for a resolution have been based on the 14th amendment than on any other part of the constitution.

Before the CW, the dicussion was, on the surface, about states rights v. federal authority, but underneath the surface Southern slave owners knew their time was slipping away and they feared losing their livlihood and way of life.............................IMO....................jean

[mabel1015j]

Jonathan - was there a lack of leadership on L's part re the emanicipation proclamation or was it brilliant, practical leadership? Even those in his cabinet who were abolitionists believed he had to wait for a Union victory to have the nation w/ him psychologically. If he had pushed emanicipation earlier, would he have lost the  Union, as he feared? He may not have been ready, at an earlier time, to push emanicipation as a personal believe, but he also recognized that much of the population probably felt as he did and it might destroy the Union. As he said if he could free all the slaves to save the Union he would do it, etc.

I don't think L did everything right, but in that instance he apparently had the right instincts about when to lead in that issue. ..........................jean

[JoanK]

I heard one discussion on Lincoln last night. The discussant (sorry, I can't remember his name) was talking about different definitions of libery (ie. freedom). Lincoln was quoted (I paraphrase) as saying that he thought of Liberty as the freedom of each man to ork and enjoy the fruits of his labor, whereas the South thought of it as the freedom to enjoy the fruits of another man's labor.

He pointed out the two kinds of freedom: freedom from, and freedom to. The Revolution had been faught to obtain freedom from: i.e. freedom from an oppressive government. That is the way most American's thought of it before Lincoln: they wanted as little government as possible, especially the national government, which they didn't trust.

But one function of government is to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak. "Freedom from" strong government can mean, as it did in this case, freedom to oppress those who are weaker, in other words, restricting the slaves "freedom to" live their lives as they wish.

This man argued that Lincoln's era had changed the definition of freedom from "freedom from" an oppressive government to "freedom to": each person having as much freedom as possible to maximize his potential, live his life.

It seems to me this tension always exists in big ways and small. My freedom always impinges on another's freedom, and the law adjudicates where one stops and the other starts. If I play the TV late at night, I impinge on my neighbors right to sleep. So I lose my freedom to watch the shows I want, or he loses his right to sleep.

But my son works at night. When my neighbor plays his radio during the day, it keeps my son from getting the sleep he needs. He is sensative to even low levels. Should the neighbor have to give up his radio because he lives above a night-working poor sleeper? Or is it my son's job to adjust either his work or his sleeping? One will lose some freedom.

[mabel1015j]

Joan - that was James McPherson, professor emeritus from Princeton U. He has written some good histories.

 The panel on biography was very good also. Ella mentioned that she enjoyed it. When i was in graduate school, during a couple semesters i was asked by one of the professors who had a seminar for undergrad Ed majors to talk about resources to teach about women's history. His name was Joe Ellis and he looked just like the historian/author Joe Ellis of today. I'd love to know if they are father and son. I sent an e-mail to h/a JE at Mt Holyhoke where he teaches, but i didn't get any reply. ..............jean