Archive for the ‘PAthway Essay’ Category

Civic Education Top 100

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

The National Archives conducted a recent poll asking Americans to vote on which historical document has had the most significance in American History. The winner … is the Declaration of Independence.

The National Archive website has a treasure trove of original documents. The list of the Top 100 includes many items that are familiar, but there are also some surprises. The “De Lome Letter” even received 97 votes.

The entire list appears below and is worth some investigation.


The Top 10 Milestone Documents:

  1. Declaration of Independence (1776) 29,681 votes
  2. Constitution of the United States (1787) 27,070 votes
  3. Bill of Rights (1791) 26,545 votes
  4. Louisiana Purchase Treaty (1803) 13,417 votes
  5. Emancipation Proclamation (1863) 13,086 votes
  6. 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women’s Right to Vote (1920) 12,282 votes
  7. 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery (1865) 11,789 votes
  8. Gettysburg Address (1863) 9,939 votes
  9. Civil Rights Act (1964) 9,860 votes
  10. Social Security Act (1935) 8,157 votes

Results for the Following 90 of 100 Documents

11. Monroe Doctrine (1823) 7,795 votes

12. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 7,313 votes

13. 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868) 7,081 votes

14. Marbury v. Madison (1803) 6,155 votes

15. Articles of Confederation (1777) 5,785 votes

16. Homestead Act (1862) 4,540 votes

17. 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Voting Rights (1870) 4,479 votes

18. Marshall Plan (1948) 4,441 votes

19. Voting Rights Act (1965) 3,993 votes

20. Federalist Papers, No. 10 & No. 51 (1787-1788) 3,859 votes

21. United Nations Charter (1945) 3,496 votes

22. Treaty of Paris (1783) 3,278 votes

23. Thomas Edison’s Patent Application for the Light Bulb (1880) 3,267 votes

24. Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) 3,095 votes

25. President George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796) 2,950 votes

26. National Interstate and Defense Highways Act (1956)2,743 votes

27. 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913) 2,713 votes

28. President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address (1961)2,708 votes

29. Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Japan (1941) 2,663 votes

30. Manhattan Project Notebook (1945) 2,616 votes

31. President Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address (1865) 2,540 votes

32. Virginia Plan (1787) 2,356 votes

33. Social Security Act Amendments (1965) 2,234 votes

34. Check for the Purchase of Alaska (1868) 2,219 votes

35. Lee Resolution (1776) 2,057 votes

36. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) 1,943 votes

37. Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (1944) 1,919 votes

38. Northwest Ordinance (1787) 1,844 votes

39. Federal Judiciary Act (1789) 1,828 votes

40. Keating-Owen Child Labor Act of 1916 (1916) 1,721 votes

41. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) 1,657 votes

42. Surrender of Germany (1945) 1,554 votes

43. Act Establishing Yellowstone National Park (1872) 1,504 votes

44. President George Washington’s First Inaugural Speech (1789) 1,491 votes

45. Pacific Railway Act (1862) 1,451 votes

46. Surrender of Japan (1945) 1,434 votes

47. 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators (1913) 1,419 votes

48. President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points (1918) 1,388 votes

49. Jefferson’s Secret Message to Congress Regarding the Lewis & Clark Expedition (1803) 1,387 votes

50. Treaty of Alliance with France (1778) 1,300 votes

51. Tennessee Valley Authority Act (1933) 1,213 votes

52. Press Release Announcing U.S. Recognition of Israel (1948) 1,195 votes

53. Truman Doctrine (1947) 1,194 votes

54. Patent for Cotton Gin (1794) 1,135 votes

55. Missouri Compromise (1820) 1,120 votes

56. President Franklin Roosevelt’s Annual Message (Four Freedoms) to Congress (1941) 1,117 votes

57. National Labor Relations Act (1935) 1,116 votes

58. Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1905) 1,091 votes

59. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) 1,042 votes

60. Executive Order 9981: Desegregation of the Armed Forces (1948) 1,010 votes

61. Lend-Lease Act (1941) 954 votes

62. Test Ban Treaty (1963) 936 votes

63. Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Germany (1917) 895 votes

64. General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Order of the Day (1944)881 votes

65. Aerial Photograph of Missiles in Cuba (1962) 875 votes

66. President Andrew Jackson’s Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’ (1830) 865 votes

67. Articles of Agreement Relating to the Surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia (1865) 857 votes

68. Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) 850 votes

69. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) 845 votes

70. Morrill Act (1862) 839 votes

71. Original Design of the Great Seal of the United States (1782) 787 votes

72. Interstate Commerce Act (1887) 723 votes

73. President Franklin Roosevelt’s Radio Address unveiling the second half of the New Deal (1936) 717 votes

74. Joint Resolution to Provide for Annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States (1898) 691 votes

75. Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) 669 votes

76. Official Program for the March on Washington (1963) 666 votes

77. Compromise of 1850 (1850) 666 votes

78. Executive Order 10730: Desegregation of Central High School (1957) 655 votes

79. Transcript of John Glenn’s Official Communication with the Command Center (1962) 613 votes

80. Telegram Announcing the Surrender of Fort Sumter (1861) 604 votes

81. Treaty of Ghent (1814) 583 votes

82. Zimmermann Telegram (1917) 580 votes

83. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address (1961) 567 votes

84. Tonkin Gulf Resolution (1964) 555 votes

85. Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) 486 votes

86. Executive Order 10924: Establishment of the Peace Corps. (1961) 482 votes

87. Senate Resolution 301: Censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy (1954) 455 votes

88. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) 440 votes

89. Wade-Davis Bill (1864) 405 votes

90. Dawes Act (1887) 372 votes

91. Executive Order 9066: Resulting in the Relocation of Japanese (1942) 334 votes

92. Pendleton Act (1883) 294 votes

93. Executive Order 8802: Prohibition of Discrimination in the Defense Industry (1941) 284 votes

94. National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) 279 votes

95. War Department General Order 143: Creation of the U.S. Colored Troops (1863) 257 votes

96. Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) 251 votes

97. Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928) 213 votes

98. Platt Amendment (1903) 140 votes

99. Armistice Agreement for the Restoration of the South Korean State (1953) 136 votes

100. De Lôme Letter (1898) 97 votes

Visit the National Archives

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Pathway to the Founding

Sunday, April 11th, 2010

Jack Miller Center’s

Pathway to the Founding Online Essays

The Jack Miller Center has begun collecting online introductory essays and book recommendations for topics and themes that broaden understanding of the American Founding. These essays are designed as introductions to the intellectual and political life of American Statesman, our U.S. Constitutional heritage, and the ancient and modern thinkers the Founders drew upon when designing our system of free government.

According to Mike Ratliff, President of the Jack Miller Center, “These essays are intended to convey the richness of the American and Western political tradition, while at the same time presenting often complex ideas in accessible form.  The JMC staff has assembled a stellar list of contributors from many of our country’s leading scholars, and we look forward to seeing their reflections on the ideas and questions of perennial importance to life of a free society.” The essays will appear periodically on the Jack Miller Center website over the next year. A sample of featured essays includes:

Abraham Lincoln (Allen Guelzo, Gettysburg College)

Montesquieu (Thomas Pangle, University of Texas)

Thomas Jefferson (Jeremy Bailey, University of Houston)

James Madison (George Thomas, Claremont-McKenna College)

Adam Smith (Sandra Peart, Jepson School of Leadership)

The American Presidency (Benjamin Kleinerman, Michigan State University)

Benjamin Franklin (Lorraine Pangle, University of Texas)

Alexander Hamilton (Peter McNamara, Utah State University)

David Hume (Scott Yenor, Boise State University)

John Adams (Richard Samuelson, California State San Bernardino)

Publius, Federalist Papers (James Stoner, Louisiana State University)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Alexander Hamilton GPS

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

A Jack Miller Center Pathway Essay

Cropped version of Thomas Jefferson, painted b...

Hamilton

“Alexander Hamilton: First Secretary of the Treasury; Soldier, Orator, Statesman, Champion of Constitutional Union, Representative Government and National Integrity.”

So reads the inscription at the base of the James Earle Fraser statue of Alexander Hamilton that stands on the south patio of the Treasury building in Washington D.C.  The statue portrays a young, vigorous, and confident Hamilton.  It is a fitting tribute to the complex and versatile man who worked so tirelessly for his adopted country.

On the more conspicuous north patio fronting Pennsylvania Avenue stands another Fraser statue, this one of Thomas Jefferson’s Treasury Secretary, Albert Gallatin.  The story behind these two statutes is told by Stephen Knott in his revealing book, Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2002).  They are part of the larger story of Hamilton’s twentieth century fall from grace.  The statues are representative of the ideological battle that led to Hamilton’s marginalization in the public and scholarly eye as an allegedly authoritarian and militaristic presence at the Founding who was, so the story goes, finally vanquished by the Jeffersonian victory in 1800.  Knott shows how Progressives and Democrats, including FDR, not only sided with Jefferson but also saw the political merits of using Jefferson as a unifying national symbol.  Knott traces Hamilton’s ups and downs in the nineteenth century as well, making his work a much needed companion piece to Merrill Peterson’s The Jefferson Image in the American Mind.

Knott believes that Hamilton has been very unfairly treated since the first Jeffersonian ascendancy.  Only during the period of Republican dominance after the Civil War did Hamilton come close to receiving his due.  Knott exposes as false many of the still prevalent “myths” surrounding Hamilton, such as the claim he once referred to the people as a “great beast.”  Knott acknowledges that Hamilton was a controversial figure, whose views on democracy in particular were out of step with his own time and with ours, but suggests that “beneath his highly colored reputation, Hamilton was the most forward looking of the framers responsible in many ways for creating the innovative institutions that have flourished for over two centuries.”

Knott notes the positive trend in recent Hamilton scholarship.  This trend really began in the 1970s with fine and influential books by Gerald Stourzh and especially Forrest McDonald.  Ron Chernow’s massive 2004 biography of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Penguin Press, 2004) represents a splendid culmination of this trend.  Chernow masterfully tells the story of Hamilton’s prodigious accomplishments as Treasury Secretary, stressing Hamilton’s grasp of the essentials of a modern financial system.  Chernow may understate the extent to which Jefferson, hardly a Luddite, had a relatively coherent alternative vision of “capitalism” but he makes a compelling case that Hamilton’s grasp of economic fundamentals far exceeded his peers and rivals.  Chernow’s biography is notable also for the way in which in brings to life Hamilton the private man.  The Hamilton who was so warmly loved and admired by family and friends was polished in his manners, generous in his habits, and supremely engaging in company.  Chernow also provides a poignant portrait of Elizabeth, Hamilton’s devoted wife, who survived him by some fifty years.

Karl Walling’s impressive Republican Empire: Alexander Hamilton on War and Free Government (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1999) extends earlier work on Hamilton’s republicanism by Stourzh and Harvey Flaumenhaft.  Walling dispels the myth of Hamilton the monarchist by constructing a republican constitutional spectrum with “vigilance” and “responsibility” as its two poles.  Jeffersonian republicanism stressed popular vigilance as the key to the preservation of liberty, whereas Hamilton’s republicanism stressed the need create institutions that enhanced responsibility, the placing of power in one or a few hands to harness ambition and to increase accountability.   Walling focuses on Hamilton’s realization that a free government must be “fit for war” as well as “safe for liberty.”  On a related point, Walling shows, in his account of Hamilton’s strategic thinking in the late 1790s, that Hamilton’s assessment of the French threat was reasonable, thereby providing a rebuttal to the longstanding charge that Hamilton was a dangerous militarist who used the specter of France to amass an army that he intended to use to suppress Jeffersonian democracy.

No account of Hamilton would be complete without mention of the event that seems so incredible today: Aaron Burr, the sitting Vice-President of the United States, killing Hamilton, the former Secretary of the Treasury, in a duel.  It was once fashionable to discuss the duel in terms of Hamilton’s erratic personality or his fragile sense of self or even his death wish, all of which were traceable to his disordered childhood.  Joanne Freeman’s highly engaging Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the Early Republic (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001) opens up a new and persuasive alternative.  The duel should not surprise us.  Duels were still common at the time and especially among military men such as Hamilton and Burr.  They were part of an elaborate culture of honor that held a gentleman’s reputation to be something worth preserving at all costs, including the risk of a duel.  Hamilton and Burr followed precisely the rituals of an affair of honor and when they could not resolve the matter to each other’s satisfaction they resorted to dueling pistols.  The goal of each party in such an affair was to prove his honor by showing his willingness to risk all.  It was not necessary to kill.  If there was a surprise in the duel at Weehawken, it is that Burr seems to have deliberately chosen to kill Hamilton.

These new perspectives on Hamilton have not only given us a new and more accurate account of Hamilton but they have also made possible a richer and more nuanced approach to the history and the political thought of the Founding period.  Hamilton will likely remain a controversial figure but there is no longer any excuse for using him as a mere villainous foil in the story of the rise of American democracy.

Peter McNamara teaches political theory at Utah State University. He specializes in early modern and American political thought.  He is the author of Political Economy and Statesmanship: Smith, Hamilton and the Foundation of the Commercial Republic and the editor of The Noblest Minds: Fame, Honor and the American Founding, and, most recently (with Louis Hunt), Liberalism, Conservatism and Hayek’s Idea of Spontaneous Order.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Professional Peril of American Political Thought

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

by Jeremy Bailey

The above title is perhaps strange, because in some ways the prospects for American political thought seem so bright.  There are now post-doc’s at good schools for freshly minted scholars, and we now benefit from ongoing connections with a relatively new subfield in political science—American Political Development.  More broadly, and compared to other traditions in political thought, American political thought will always benefit from cultural home field advantage: my colleagues seem interested to hear about the original understanding of the veto power or judicial review, and people on the street seem eager to talk about the Founders.

Library

Library

But two problems suggest that the larger future does not look so good. First, as we all know, there are still very few jobs.   In political science, I would guess that the average number of tenure-track job ads mentioning American political thought as a desired subfield has been between one and two, at least since 2002.   Second, and much more important, there are very few senior scholars who specialize in American political thought. In political science, I probably could count those tenured in PhD granting departments on one hand.  In history, the situation is probably worse.   In both fields, these senior scholars will retire and likely not be replaced.  Without jobs, the field will disappear.  If good tenure track jobs at liberal arts colleges suddenly appear, but senior scholars in PhD granting departments are not replaced, American political thought will be taught for a generation to undergraduates and then disappear.

This problem regarding the coming absence of senior scholars in PhD granting departments could be related to what might be a third problem: American political thought has been unable to define itself.  For many political theorists, American political thought is not true political theory.  American political thought is too concerned with practical politics, and its principal texts are not as difficult – not as rewarding– as those by real philosophers.  For most Americanists, American political thought belongs to weekends in Barnes and Noble but not in a quantitative social science.  To a true theorist, American political thought is “American politics rightly understood,” yet to a true Americanist it is “political theory we can live with.”

It is true that other subfields have faced the dilemma, and some have survived by using this definitional slipperiness as an advantage.  Even so, it is important for scholars of American political thought to think through its several possible approaches.  Here are four:

1.  American political thought is a series of case studies in democratic theory. This approach highlights the various “activist” strands in the American political tradition, often characterizing American political history as progress from injustice to justice.

2.  American political thought should be treated in the same way that we would consider Roman political thought or British political thought.  This approach would emphasize the central contribution of American political thought, that is, its development of toleration and pluralism.  That is, American political thought is best understood as the grand synthesis of Madison and Rawls.

3.  American political thought is important for its connection to constitutional law and should be used to enhance our understanding about current constitutional questions.  Under this approach, American political thought is to be studied for its precedential value.

4.  American political thought is best understood from the perspective of the contest between the ancients and the moderns. Under this framework, American political thought is an accessible way for students to consider larger questions such as the place of prudence, the relationship of the one and the many, or the necessity of virtue.

Each approach raises its own important – and very different– question about politics, and each offers its toehold to confused undergraduates, but each has a tendency to subjugate what it proposes to study to the larger question it seeks to answer.  As a result, each seems to cycle over the same questions instead of looking deeper into American political thought to see what new questions might arise or to check whether what it claims is true about a particular figure or text is actually true. To put it somewhat differently, because none truly attempts to study a figure as he understood himself, each risks undermining the scholarly future of American political thought.

The good news is that what each approach assumes as a given can in turn serve as a theoretical backdrop for an actual question.  For example:

  1. If Jefferson believed in human progress, why did he say over and over again that the people would lose their capacity for republican government in the future?
  2. Did Madison ever embrace the Bill of Rights as a positive good?
  3. To what extent did Madison and Lincoln have different views about the original understanding of the power of Congress to regulate slavery in the territories?
  4. What did Madison mean when he called the Convention of 1787 evidence of divine intervention?

The answers to these four questions would have consequences for the theoretical premise of each of the four approaches, and thus be of interest to political science.  But questions like these sometime require departing from the premise of the approach in order to figure out the political situation under which the figure in question spoke or wrote.  The problem, then, is this: if we depart from the theoretical premise, we in political science find ourselves being charged with doing history (mere history from the perspective of political scientists, and bad history from the perspective of historians). Yet if we refuse to ask new questions, and look the other way when confronted with historical complexity, we undermine the scholarly potential of our already hobbled subfield.

Jeremy Bailey teaches at the University of Houston and is the author of Thomas Jefferson and Executive Power.

The views expressed in this essay are not necessarily those of The Jack Miller Center for Teaching America’s Founding Principles and History.

Hume and the Pathway to Political Moderation

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

A Jack Miller Center Pathway to the Founding Essay

Hume made the famous is-ought distinction

Hume

David Hume (b. 1711) died the year Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence.  While he may have rolled over in his grave had he seen the theorizing of the American Founders, he was more than a little sympathetic with the goals of American political practice.

On the one hand, in his essays “Of Civil Liberty,”  “Of the Original Contract,” “Of Passive Obedience,” and “Of the Rise and Progress of the Arts and Sciences,” Hume opposed the rise of a rights-based, social contract thinking characteristic of Locke and the Declaration.  Locke’s Second Treatise, Hume writes, was a book “most despicable, both for style and matter.”  Hume’s worry was that “parties from principle, especially abstract speculative principle” would give rise to a dangerous factionalism. Because he criticized such speculative principles and the natural rights foundation of the American republic, the most revolutionary and Whiggish Americans branded Hume a Tory.  Writing of Hume’s magisterial History of England, Jefferson thought Hume had “undermined the free principles of the English Constitution”; Jefferson considered Hume to be a “traitor to his fellow man.”

On the other hand, in his essays such as “Of Commerce” and “Of Refinement in the Arts,” Hume looked forward to the ascension of a more humane, stable politics, and he thought that the advancement of the modern commercial enterprise would help bring such a politics about.  He discerned the importance of such political structures as the separation of powers, the checks and balances, and the extended commercial republic as a means of mitigating the effects of faction and promoting political moderation.  As Americans focused less on the origin of political power and the establishment of popular government and more on the proper exercise of power and the prevention of democratic factionalism, they found Hume an invaluable guide. Hume writes, “there is compass and room enough” in large polities “to refine democracy through representation.”  A society “dispersed in small bodies” is “more susceptible both of reason and order; the force of popular currents and tides is, in a great measure, broken; and the public interest may be pursued with some method and constancy.”  These links between Hume and the American Founders are pursued most persistently in the pioneering work of Douglas Adair, whose Fame and Founding remains the locus classicus of Hume’s influence.

Hume appears hostile to the Declaration, yet a friend of the Constitution.  The question of Hume scholarship concerns how these political aspects of Hume’s thought fit in with his philosophic reflections.  To this day, many have argued that a “philosophical melancholy” led Hume to quite philosophical studies for the world of political essays and history.  In Thomas Reid’s Inquiry into the Human Mind (1764), Hume emerges as a skeptic who destroyed the Enlighenment faith in our ability to apprehend the external world and our ability to guide political practice through reason.  Reid sought to replace Hume’s radical skepticism with a philosophy of common sense.

While Reid’s views were echoed through the years in philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and T.H Green, during the Twentieth Century scholars have emphasized how Hume himself aligns with a “philosophy of common life” through what Hume himself calls a mitigated skepticism, and this eventually led to the view that Hume’s skepticism prepares the way for his embrace of political moderation.  The “common sense” Hume emerged in a two-step process.  First, Norman Kemp Smith’s Philosophy of David Hume (1941), still the classic study of David Hume, initiated this re-evaluation of Hume’s thought.  Kemp Smith argued that Hume’s skepticism was in the service of what he called naturalism—reason must be subordinated to feelings and instincts if we are to explain the way human beings perceive the world.  Kemp Smith did not detect a link between Hume’s philosophy and his politics.

Second and most decisively, scholars such as Donald Livingston (Hume’s Philosophy of Common Life (1984) and Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium: Hume’s Pathology of Philosophy (1998)), Nicholas Capaldi (Hume’s Place in Moral Philosophy (1989)) and John W. Danford (David Hume and the Problem of Reason (1990)), painted a complete picture of Hume, uniting his philosophic works with his political disposition.  The position of these books, in one way or another, is that Hume’s skepticism served as a preparatory ground for philosophical and political moderation.  He used his skepticism to poke holes in doctrines such as the distinction between primary and secondary qualities or social contract theory in order to prepare people to understand that doctrines and principles do not best explain human life.  Moreover, against Kemp Smith and his followers, this wave of Hume’s scholars show that reason can help to correct the mistakes of instinct and feeling.  What emerges is a Hume whose skepticism is mitigated by feelings and instincts and whose naturalism is mitigated by reason.  Given our complex set of equipment, we would do well not to expect perfection or certainty in politics or philosophy and this explains why Hume defended the institutions of political moderation in the modern world.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Lincoln: Bad News Bicentennial

Sunday, February 14th, 2010

The last few times the nation has been called upon to throw major parties for the anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, the results have been something less than admirable. The Lincoln Centennial in 1909 is mostly remembered now for a bloody race riot in Lincoln’s own home town of Springfield, Illinois, and a new version of the penny, with Lincoln’s profile on the obverse. The Lincoln Sesquicentennial in 1959 was marked by a special address to Congress by poet and Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg, and a new version of the Lincoln penny.  Perhaps the best thing which can be said about the Lincoln Bicentennial in 2009 is that, once more, we got a new version of the Lincoln penny.

Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of th...

President Lincoln

Maybe this should not come as a surprise. Lincoln’s historical reputation hit its highest point in the 1910s and ‘20s, and has been slipping gradually in stature ever since; among African-Americans, who once idolized him as a second Moses, Lincoln’s standing as the Great Emancipator has nose-dived since the 1960s, to the point where Lincoln is now routinely discounted as a scheming white supremacist who only wanted to use black people for his own political ends. Part of this is surely produced by the general decline in civic literacy in American schooling, where it’s enough a struggle just to identify who Lincoln was, entirely apart from the larger task of explaining what he did; and the decline of Lincoln’s fortunes among blacks is surely linked to a healthy unwillingness to see themselves as merely the step-children of benevolent white folks. Neither of these represent irreversible developments — provided that the Lincoln Bicentennial could be deployed in what it is now fashionable to call a ‘teachable moment.’ But the ‘teachable moment’ has come and gone, and little if anything of the Lincoln Bicentennial seems to have served the purpose of reminding Americans of either who Lincoln was or what he did.

The bulk of the blame has to fall squarely on the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, which was created (and funded) by Congress in 2000 to act as the forum for the celebrations of Lincoln’s birth in 2009. Almost from the start, the Commission became a political football, with Michael Bishop, the Bush Administration’s pick as executive director, at loggerheads with the Commission’s co-chair, Illinois Democratic senator Dick Durbin, and the Commission’s two most prominent Democratic appointees, Harold Holzer and Chicago Congressman Jesse Jackson, jnr. Once control of Congress shifted into Democratic hands in 2006, Bishop was out as executive director, and in his place came Eileen Mackevich, who had no particular connection to anything Lincolnian apart from having run the Chicago Humanities Festival. Lincoln had once declined an invitation to join a Chicago law firm, complaining that the place would kill him. The Commission, now with the skilled technicians from the Land of Blagojevich securely at the controls, proceeded to confirm Lincoln’s apprehensions, post facto.

It was books, rather than “town halls” and exhibitions, which ended up carrying the day for Lincoln’s bicentennial. Lincoln has always been a profitable subject for book publishers over the years (along with diet books, cook books, the Kennedys, and Hitler), and the bicentennial year would surely be no exception. Although we were warned by the Boston Globe in the fall of 2008 that “at least 50 titles about Lincoln are due out between next month and 2010,” there is, after it all, no difficulty in picking out the giant among the pygmies, and that is Michael Burlingame’s two-volume Abraham Lincoln: A Life, over 2000 pages long and built over the span of two decades on the most exacting research. If Burlingame’s Lincoln does not win the Pultizer, the National Book Award, and the Lincoln Prize, there is no justice. Crowding behind Burlingame are Thomas Krannawitter’s Vindicating Lincoln, Barry Schwartz’s Abraham Lincoln in the Post-Heroic Era: History and Memory in Late Twentieth-Century America, Stephen Berry’s House of Abraham (on Lincoln and the Todd family), Charles Lachman’s The Last Lincolns and the inevitable Harold Holzer’s Lincoln, President-Elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter, 1860-1861. Much-ballyhooed but almost empty of anything significant are Ronald White’s A. Lincoln: A Biography and George McGovern’s Abraham Lincoln. And far down at the bottom are the contributors to Eric Foner’s stillborn Our Lincoln: New Perspectives on Lincoln and His World, which struggles to drape Lincoln in the toga of Progressive deification.

Curiously, no one attempted a Lincoln movie, although rumors continued to bob-up all through 2009 about a Steven Spielberg ‘Lincoln,’ with screenplay by Tony Kushner and starring Liam Neeson as Lincoln and Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln. There were, however, no shortage of documentaries produced, from PBS, the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, and National Geographic. Almost predictably, PBS’s “Looking for Lincoln” was another long soak in racial bathos, with Henry Louis Gates ‘looking’ for someone who could persuade him that Lincoln was not really a white supremacist. But PBS also produced a corking-good documentary on “The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln,” based on James Swanson’s Manhunt, while the History Channel took on the unlikely subject of the 1876 scheme to rob Lincoln’s tomb, “Stealing Lincoln’s Body.” At least one major theater production has emerged from the bicentennial, James Still’s The Heavens Are Hung in Black, a three-act play commissioned for the re-opening of Ford’s Theater in Washington after an 18-month refit. And Norman Corwin’s 1959 play on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, The Rivalry, was dusted-off for a new audio-CD production by the LA Film Works, featuring Paul Giamatti as Stephen Douglas and David Straithern as Lincoln.

Lincoln in music had a much better time during the bicentennial. Over and above the by-now ritualized performances of Aaron Copland’s A Lincoln Portrait (1942), the Naxos label issued ‘The Lincoln Portrait Project,’ a CD which began with the Copland piece, but reached out to include both new and old works written around the Lincoln theme – Morton Gould’s Lincoln Legend (first performed in 1942 by Toscanini), Charles Ives’ setting of Edwin Markham’s lugubrious poem, “Lincoln the Man of the People,” and two works by Paul Turok (Variations on an American Song, based on the 1860 campaign tune ‘Lincoln and Liberty, Too’) and Ernest Bacon (a twelve-movement suite, Ford’s Theatre). Orchestra programs around the country tacked the Copland Lincoln Portrait onto their programs, although frequently undoing the dramatic potential of the music by hiring in the role of solo narrator a celebrity who couldn’t have told Lincoln from a half-note. The Chicago Symphony and the San Francisco Symphony programmed the Copland with James Earl Jones as the narrator, the Boston Pops got by with a local TV personality, and the Philadelphia Orchestra passed all understanding in giving the narrator’s ticket to Alec Baldwin. Curiously, there remained an impressive backlog of ‘Lincoln music’ which was never touched by either performance or recording during 2009 — Daniel Gregory Mason’s Lincoln Symphony (1936), Roy Harris’s Symphony no. 10 “Abraham Lincoln” (1965) and Herbert Elwell’s Lincoln – Requiem Aeternam (1946). Unhappily, music directors rarely feel the urge to consult historians when drawing up the next season’s program.

The Lincoln Bicentennial has not lacked for quantity, which may be some consolation. He is still very much a lively target of interest for scholarly books, although the moguls of the book trade are very likely to want to give the Lincoln subject a rest after so many books during the bicentennial. And if it gave us nothing more than Burlingame’s Lincoln, we would still have cause for gratitude. But it is disappointing that the public side of the Lincoln commemorations was so lackluster – worse than lackluster, so unfocussed and so liable to trim its course to the demands of the political bien-pensants. There were moments, particularly under the aegis of the ALBC, when it was not clear whether Lincoln was being celebrated or indicted. And there is certainly no sign that the bustle of Lincolnian activities promoted by the ALBC made much of a dent in slowly-rising indifference to Lincoln which has been in-process for the last four-score-and-ten. That, unhappily, is an important failure, because the more we lose a grasp on Lincoln, the more we will tend to drift away as a nation from the Lincolnian ideals of self-transformation, of economic mobility, and of the ennobling power of free labor and commerce. Those were the qualities which Lincoln believed made America the “last, best hope of earth.” Let’s hope that the Lincoln Bicentennial does not turn out to have been the last, best hope for Lincoln.

Allen C. Guelzo is Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era and Director of Civil War Era Studies, Gettysburg College

Allen Guelzo is also the author of Lincoln (Oxford University Press, 2009), Abraham Lincoln as a Man of Ideas (Southern Illinois University Press, 2009).

Man of Ideas

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

James Madison GPS

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

A Jack Miller Center Pathway Essay

By George Thomas

Portrait of James Madison, one of the authors ...

James Madison

Dubbed the “father of the Constitution” by the historian Charles Jared Ingersoll in 1825, James Madison resisted the title. Yet it is by this title that Madison remains best known. While biographies of the “Founding Fathers” continue to meet the public’s appetite —there have been new biographies of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton in recent years—books on Madison, especially those that break into the popular fold, tend to be historical studies of the early years of the Republic. Madison has become inseparable from the nation he helped bring into being.  Indeed, when the late Marvin Meyers gathered together the first comprehensive one volume edition of Madison’s writings in the early 1970s, he titled it The Mind of the Founder. And what better way to get at the bookish Madison than by reading.

First published in 1971, but brought out in paperback by the University of Virginia Press in 1990, Ralph Ketcham’s James Madison: A Biography is the best one volume biography of Madison’s life. As an early editor of the Madison Papers when the project was housed at the University of Chicago, Ketcham had access to material that was not available to earlier biographers. (Material on Madison continues to come out from the University of Virginia Press under the editorship of J.C.A. Stagg.) Ketcham’s biography not only traces Madison’s career, it gives us a sense of the man. As Madison said of his early years in Virginia under the study of Donald Robertson, who introduced him to thinkers like Montaigne and Montesquieu, “all that I have been in life I owe largely to that man.” It also captures a side of Madison that is less rarely on display (including a portrait of the beautiful Dolley Madison, who was introduced to Madison by Aaron Burr, and has also come into her own with a recent biography A Perfect Union: Dolley Madison and the Creation of the American Nation by Catherine Allgor.) The slight and frail man dressed in republican black had an impish sense of humor and was a lively presence among friends.

This should come as no great surprise. Madison led the charge in revolutionary Virginia to establish religious liberty, was the most important mind at the Constitutional Convention, joined with Alexander Hamilton to offer the great defense of the Constitution in The Federalist, crafted the Bill of Rights, and was behind the creation of political parties that helped bring about what Thomas Jefferson dubbed “the revolution of 1800”—the first peaceful transfer of power in history. To be so influential, we would expect a certain amount of persuasive character. Witnessing Madison’s exchanges with the gifted orator Patrick Henry in the Virginia ratifying convention, John Marshall called Madison the most eloquent speaker of his age. And yet, it is this very sweep that has often led to charges that Madison was inconsistent and vacillating—a lesser figure who fluctuated between the pull of Hamilton and Jefferson.  To follow Madison through this tumultuous period, one could do no better than Lance Banning’s The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic.  Banning’s book has the great virtue of reconstructing Madison’s thought from Madison’s preoccupations. The result is a Madison that is at once a skillful politician and a great thinker—he is neither Jefferson’s, nor Hamilton’s second.

If Madison was a masterful politician, he has not been seen as a great president. He left office extraordinarily popular, but history has been stern. Madison’s temperate claims of executive power make for intriguing reading against such judgments. The best history of his presidency remains Henry Adams’s History of the United States During the Administrations of James Madison first published in 1890. Adams, grandson of John Quincy Adams and great grandson of John Adams, has an overwrought sense of irony in his treatment of Madison. He is a New Englander who on occasion seems to think of Madison, like the first other four presidents who were not Adamses, as one of those damned Virginians. And, to be sure, many modern historians have offered a more rounded and sympathetic account of Madison’s presidency—even insisting the War of 1812, for all of its faults, helped sustain American independence for the long haul. Still, Adams’s great history is worth reading as it offers a detailed account of Madison’s presidency—coming in at over a 1,000 pages—and is itself one of the first great works of history written in the United States.

Madison lived beyond his contemporaries as the “last of the founders.” This from the frail youth who just after graduating from Princeton wrote that he did not expect “a long or healthy life.” Well, he lived until 1835 and witnessed the development of his handiwork for nearly another two decades. The nation returned to the issues of the 1780s and 1790s in debates over the national bank, the tariff, slavery and, most of all, nullification. Charges of inconsistency returned to haunt Madison and, a lifelong addict to politics and newspapers, Madison himself returned to the fray. Drew McCoy’s Last of the Fathers: James Madison and the Republican Legacy takes up Madison the elder statesmen, weaving together Madison’s late career with his early career in a wonderfully illuminating fashion. In McCoy’s able hands, we get a finely textured history that also happens to be a deeper education in Madison’s thought and the nature of the republic he helped birth.

Above all, Madison is an original constitutional thinker. Jack Rakove’s Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution is about the ideas and interests that framed the Constitution, but it is written with Madison as its central figure. Rakove captures what it means to make a constitution that is intended to endure for ages to come, but also how this begins from historical problems. When it comes to original meaning and its current application, Rakove offers somewhat ambivalent answers. But, following Madison, Rakove turns to the right questions, which are much broader than our unfortunate preoccupation with the Supreme Court and constitutional law. There is almost certainly an important lesson in the fact that Madison, our great constitutional thinker, was not a lawyer.

If you do not have the time—or is it the virtue?—for a longer book, or want only one book on Madison, you might pick up Rakove’s very brief James Madison and the Creation of the American Republic. For the republican side of Madison, you might try Colleen Sheehan’s James Madison and the Spirit of Republican Government. It’s a bit academic, but is engaging and readable; it even ends with a tribute to that great Madisonian—Harry Potter. If you are more adventurous, read Madison himself. He is imminently readable. You might be surprised how much sense and logic is packed into his short essays, and how relevant they remain for thinking about our Constitution and our politics.

George Thomas is Associate Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and the author of The Madisonian Constitution (Johns Hopkins).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Understanding the Presidency

Monday, January 11th, 2010

A Jack Miller Center Pathway Essay

At the center of our politics and a lightning-rod for all of our political controversy, the American presidency has somehow managed not to command the same scholarly attention as it has political attention.   There have been countless great books written about individual presidents: Lord Charnwood’s biography of Abraham Lincoln stands out above the rest.  But books on the American presidency as an institution are much less common and, as a whole, much less good.  That being said, those few that do stand out also stand above nearly every book that has been written on American politics more generally.

Harvey Mansfield’s Taming the Prince: The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power is the best book on the executive branch, although it is a challenging read.  In the first place, Mansfield’s book is an unsurpassed intellectual history of the concept of the modern executive.  By showing the extent to which the modern executive emerges as a theoretical invention that allows free governments to maintain their security even as they also preserve their freedom, Mansfield manages to capture the essence of the constitutional problem posed by executive power.  In the wake of the controversies surrounding the Bush administration, Mansfield’s book gives us insight into both sides of the debate.  The republican (not R) opponents of a strong executive emerge as concerned with the rule of law over and against the danger of the quick-acting and power-hungry executive; the proponents of a strong executive, including Mansfield himself, emerge as concerned with the inefficiencies and insufficiencies of the rule of law on its own—inefficiencies and insufficiencies that can and must be corrected by the executive with a taste not just for power but also for grandeur.  This book’s own grandeur lies, among many other things, in its ability to be a partisan in the debate in a manner that can teach the rest of us what true partisanship actually looks like.

Much less ethereal than Mansfield’s Taming the Prince, Jeffrey Tulis’s The Rhetorical Presidency also stands out for its insight into the presidency and into the nature of American politics more generally.  If I had to choose only one book to recommend to someone who wanted to understand American politics, I would choose The Rhetorical Presidency.  Tulis begins with a brilliant exposition of the founders’ understanding of presidential power within a system of separated powers.  It concludes with an equally brilliant investigation of the political dilemmas that have been created by the twentieth-century transformation of the presidency into the rhetorical mouth-piece of the people.  Although Tulis considers the “original intent” of the founders, he is not an ordinary “originalist.”  In other words, he does not suggest that America is failing because the current presidency does not live up to the founders’ intent.  Instead, Tulis suggests that the founders’ intentions persist in the constitutional forms and formalities of both the presidency and the system of separation of powers, although these constitutional forms and formalities rest uncomfortably with the twentieth century post-Woodrow Wilson transformation of presidential power.   Having taught this book on many occasions, I can say that its most outstanding virtue is the extent to which it opens students’ eyes not just to the dilemmas inherent in the modern presidency but to those that inhere in all of modern American politics.

Nearly every recommender of important books on the presidency is almost compelled to include Richard Neustadt’s Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan.  Although Neustadt has been rightly criticized by many scholars, including both Tulis and Mansfield, for over-emphasizing persuasion and under-emphasizing the formal powers of command involved in the office, the book still stands high on my shelf if for no other reason than its immensely readable account of the unique political situations our “modern presidents” have faced and their differing responses to them.  The book is better than its thesis.  It is good for its perceptive and enjoyable account of politics.  It is written by a man with both a taste for political life and an insider’s insight into the world of which he writes.  In fact, as scholars have pointed out, his political accounts tend to reveal how important the powers of command are as supplements to the powers of persuasion that his thesis emphasizes.  For anyone seeking to understand the politics of presidential administration, Neustadt’s book is still in a class of its own.

If Neustadt’s book emphasizes persuasion too much, Edward Corwin’s The President: Office and Powers offers an antidote.  To say that Corwin places exclusive emphasis on the formal or institutional aspects of presidential power would be unfair to the nuanced understanding contained within this book.  Corwin explores a variety of the aspects of presidential power, illustrating both their nature and their use by surveying historical precedents and Supreme Court cases.  As a scholarly apparatus, Corwin’s book is irreplaceable (I say that as someone who has regrettably just lost his tattered copy of this out-of-print book).  Where Neustadt brings an insider’s perspective to the workings of the presidency, Corwin, who is not just a scholar but one of our greatest and most thoughtful constitutional scholars, offers us a broad and perspicacious view of the presidency.

Finally, Stephen Skowronek’s The Politics Presidents Make offers one of the most fascinating, though somewhat inaccessible, accounts of the sources for presidential authority over the course of American history.   Developing a theory of what he calls “political time,” Skowronek is able to account for both the success of “reconstructive” presidents like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR and the failure of “disjunctive” presidents such as John Quincy Adams, James Buchanan, and Herbert Hoover.   His guiding question is as ambitious as the scope of the book.  Examining the history of the presidency from Jefferson to Clinton, Skowronek aims to explain why some presidents have the political authority to exercise the full range of their powers while others do not.  In aiming to answer this question, Skowronek ends up providing us with more: he gives us a thoughtful, though much too reductionist, political history of the United States.

Skowonek’s book appropriately finishes this list because it best captures the difficulties of writing about the presidency as an institution as opposed to writing about individual presidents.  Skowronek aims to create a theory capable of explaining when and why presidents are successful in upsetting an established political order and successfully creating a new one.  Skowronek aims to create a theory that explains the immense individual variation during the history of the presidency.  This theory is oddly enough predicated on the fact that the presidency attracts those who want to do more than just to hold office; they want the fame that can only come from, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, planning and undertaking “extensive and arduous enterprises for the public benefit.”  Skowronek’s theory tends to reduce presidential success to their respective place in “political time.”  In other words, he downplays the importance of individual prudence.  Although this makes some sense in the context of more typical political ambition, i.e. Mayhew’s book, The Electoral Connection, on the ambition of members of Congress is sensible in its reductionism, it is much more problematic in an office that attracts the highest types who possess the greatest stage on which to exercise and display their political prudence.  To a far greater degree than any other institution in American government, presidential success or grandeur depend on any given president’s individual ability to navigate the political world in which he finds himself.

Benjamin Kleinerman is an Assistant Professor at James Madison College at Michigan State University and the author of a newly acclaimed study entitled The Discretionary President: The Promise and Peril of Executive Power.

Kleinerman

Kleinerman

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

A Montesquieu GPS

Monday, December 21st, 2009

By Thomas Pangle

A Jack Miller Center Pathway to the Founding Essay

Through his authorship of The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu (whose full name was Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron of la Brède and of Montesquieu), became by far the most respected and consulted political theorist of the late eighteenth century. No book except the Bible was cited more often by Americans during the Founding period.

A picture of Montesquieu

Montesquieu

James Madison wrote in The Federalist (No. 47) that he was “the oracle who is always consulted and cited” on the subject of separation of powers. Montesquieu was also the authority on federalism, on the character of a commercial republic, and on the natures of democracy, monarchy, and despotism. He was looked to by his student William Blackstone for the fundamental principles underlying the Commentaries on the Laws of England. He was the inspiration and guide for Edmund Burke both in opposing the French Revolution and in attacking the British Empire in India. Montesquieu was the first, and for some time the only, major thinker to write forcefully against the enslavement of black Africans, and it was he who inspired the anti-slavery movement, which emerged in England out of his disciples.

The true meaning and teaching of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws has been hotly contested since its first printing. Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists — the proponents and the opponents of the ratification of the Constitution — claimed to be following Montesquieu more faithfully. Each side condemned their opponents’ misinterpretations. The Roman Catholic Church placed The Spirit of the Laws on the Index of forbidden readings as too dangerously liberal, and the radical Thomas Paine celebrated the book for the same reason; but at the same time, Thomas Jefferson attacked the work as so conservative as to be dangerously alien to American principles. When Burke appealed to Montesquieu, his antagonists, the upholders of the British East India Company, defiantly cited chapter and verse in claiming to be the true followers of Montesquieu’s imperialistic teachings on how to understand and deal with eastern despotism and religion.

Disputes of this kind over Montesquieu’s true teaching have continued among modern scholars. The controversies reflect the fact that The Spirit of the Laws is a work of gargantuan scope and demanding subtlety, animated by dramatic inner tensions, vibrating with provocative debates, and bristling with perplexities. “The aim,” Montesquieu says at a key point, “is not to make the reader read, but to make the reader think.”

Unfortunately, the original English translation of Montesquieu’s masterpiece, by Thomas Nugent (the version used by the American Founders), was not accurate enough to allow a sufficiently reliable reading. The more recent translation by Anne Cohler, Basia Miller, and Harold Stone is a considerable improvement, but still falls short of the most desirable degree of accuracy.

Important clues to Montesquieu’s complex and puzzling philosophy may be found in the fact that prior to spending twenty years in writing The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu had already become famous as the author of an enigmatic philosophic and theological novel, The Persian Letters, and a compact philosophic analysis of the history of Rome—entitled Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline.

The latter is now available in quite an accurate translation by David Lowenthal, with a helpful introduction. More recently, important light on Montesquieu early analysis of Rome, and how that analysis illuminates his intention in The Spirit of the Laws is discussed in Paul Rahe’s Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift and Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty.

The Persian Letters has yet to find a very accurate translation, but there is a fascinating and revealing interpretative study by Diana Schaub.

*

Thomas Pangle is the author of Montesquieu’s Philsophy of Liberalism and a much anticipated volume on The Theological Basis of Liberal Modernity in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws published by the University of Chicago Press.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

A Lincoln GPS

Monday, October 19th, 2009

On the eve of 2009 the Miller Center asked the renowned Lincoln Scholar, Allan Guelzo, for a road map to lincoln’s life and mind.

Sketch of a younger Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln

A Lincoln GPS

The year 2008 is not quite over yet, but already, by the annual tally I do for our Civil War Era Studies website at Gettysburg College, 244 Civil War-related books have issued forth from publishers’ presses. And just as daunting, thirty of those are about some aspect of the life and presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Yes, that’s just one, as-yet-unfinished year. That only adds to the burden of sorting-out the approximately 16,000 other books which have been published about Lincoln since his death in 1865. So where, in this bewildering thicket, should someone begin reading about Abraham Lincoln?

Although it was published in 1952, Benjamin P. Thomas’s Abraham Lincoln remains the best and most-readable of all single-volume Lincoln biographies. Thomas was the executive secretary of the Abraham Lincoln Association, with a PhD in diplomatic history from Johns Hopkins University. He served as a major contributor to the three-volume Lincoln Day-by-Day (a key reference work begun in 1933 which tracked every recorded movement of Lincoln from 1809 to 1865), wrote a short account of Lincoln’s early years in New Salem, Illinois, and published a collection of biographical sketches of major Lincoln biographers. Thomas also the first modern Lincoln biographer to have access to the Robert Todd Lincoln Papers – the vast collection of White House papers which Abraham Lincoln’s sole surviving son, Robert Todd Lincoln, had secreted in trunks in his New England mansion, and only donated to the Library of Congress under the condition that they not be opened to researchers until 21 years after his death.

For those who want to probe more deeply into the ‘private’ Lincoln, nothing beats Michael Burlingame’s The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln (1994). Although Burlingame was constantly advised that nothing new was likely be discovered about Abraham Lincoln which was not already known, it occurred to Burlingame that Lincoln biographers of earlier generations could scarcely have crammed all of what they knew into single books. There were bound to be documents, letters and interviews which these earlier biographers had either left unused or simply filed away. And so Burlingame went a-digging in the archives and manuscript collections of Lincoln biographers (starting with the turn-of-the-century ‘muckraker’ journalist, Ida Tarbell) and turned up reams of unused and previously unknown materials on Lincoln – lost interviews with Lincoln’s friends and associates, clippings from obscure newspapers, and so forth. Burlingame brought this relentless pursuit of new Lincoln material together in The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln, which is really a series of formidably-researched essays on the Lincoln marriage, Lincoln and slavery, examples of Lincoln’s anger and (occasionally) cruelty, Lincoln’s “melancholy,” and Lincoln’s “ambition.” Not only are these essays path-breakers, but the footnotes are almost as interesting as the essays themselves.

Professionally, Lincoln was a lawyer, practicing law for 25 years in the Illinois circuit courts, appeals courts, and federal district court. Comparatively little was known about the dimensions of his law practice, however, because so much of the paperwork was squirreled away in dimly-lit basements of small county courthouses scattered around Illinois. It was not until the 1980s that a major project to collect and codify all of Lincoln’s legal papers was launched by the Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency. And as the ‘Lincoln Legals’ project brought more and more of Lincoln’s legal papers to light, the overall shape of his legal practice finally could be identified and analyzed. The full documentary record of the Lincoln Legal Papers project was published in 2000 on DVD.[1] But the best and most accessible overall survey of that teeming mass of documents – over 100,000 papers from 5600 cases in which Lincoln participated – is Mark E. Steiner’s An Honest Calling: The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln (2007). Written by a law professor with a keen eye for the context that makes sense of all the details, Steiner neatly situates Lincoln in the history of American law and provides an easily-understood overview of the various facets of Lincoln’s law practice, from two-dollar trespass cases to corporate law suits.

But Lincoln was more than a lawyer. He was an Illinoisan (at least by transplant when he was 20 years old), and that made him part of ‘the West’ in the 19th century; he was a Kentuckian by birth, which made him part of an important social circle in the Illinois state capital of Springfield; and he was a Whig (until the Whig party collapsed in 1856 and Lincoln joined the new Republican party). Tying together the ‘social history’ of Abraham Lincoln requires an extraordinarily fine-grained knowledge of Lincoln’s social milieu in Illinois, his friends, his associates, and how much Lincoln conformed to the patterns of ambitious and forward-looking Americans in the decades before the Civil War. All this has been tied very neatly together by Kenneth J. Winkle’s The Young Eagle: The Rise of Abraham Lincoln (2001). Winkle has worked out the inter-connected social circles of Lincoln’s adult world, graphed and coded them, and let us see the same society Lincoln saw everyday when he walked to his office.

But above all, Abraham Lincoln is the great champion of democracy – the enemy of human slavery and the defender of the American democracy when it was threatened, not by outside invasion, but by inward dissolution and anarchy. No single event in Lincoln’s life cast his political ideas in a starker light than the series of seven debates he conducted with Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 as they both campaigned for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois. And no one has ever laid out the ideas behind those debates better than Harry V. Jaffa in Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates (1959). For Jaffa, the Lincoln-Douglas debates are the nearest American equivalent to Plato’s Symposium, and his magisterial treatment of the great debates shows Lincoln in his greatest moment, defending equality, natural law, and liberty as no other American before or since has done.

I do not expect that writing about Abraham Lincoln will stand still, or that these will always remain the five greatest Lincoln books of them all (Michael Burlingame is, in fact, shortly to release a two-volume biography of Lincoln which will likely throw all previous Lincoln biographies of any shape or size into the shade). But as we stand at the doorway of the bicentennial of Lincoln’s birth in 2009, Thomas, Burlingame, Steiner, Winkle and Jaffa are the top seeds for anyone looking to strike up a worthwhile and exciting acquaintance with Mr. Lincoln – and they probably will be for many years to come.

Allen C. Guelzo

Gettysburg College

*

Allen Guelzo’s newest volume offers a view of Lincoln’s political and philosophical thought.

Guelzo



[1] Daniel W. Stowell and the staff of the Lincoln Legal Papers have also published a four-volume print edition of the documents from fifty of the most famous Lincoln law cases, The Papers of Abraham Lincoln: Legal Documents and Cases (2007).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]