socraticgadfly's review
challenging
fast-paced
2.75
This is another failed attempt to whitewash Lincoln on the issue of colonization of African-Americans, above all else. When Burlingame started citing David S. Reynolds and James Oakes as additional justification on the issue, I knew the game was up.
Both of them are wrong, too, and I got into a multiple email exchange argument with Oakes.
Here's the basics: Burlingame claims that LIncoln never talked **in public** about colonization after the middle or so of 1862. True as bare fact, but the ethical equivalent of a lie by omission on the big picture.
Reality? Even after Congress had cut off all money for federal support of colonization schemes in the summer of 1864, Lincoln asked his Attorney General, Edward Bates, in the fall of 1864 if 1862 Congressional legislation allowed him to still push colonization without funding.
Then, Ben Butler claimed that, the week of Lincoln's assassination, the president mentioned the idea of reviving the Panama colonization effort to him. Yes, Butler is not the most reliable person, and he said that years later, but it has been confirmed that he met Lincoln on the date in question, at the White House.
We don't know Bates' response to Lincoln, but if Butler is correct, that would corroborate that he gave Lincoln a green light.
Does that make Lincoln a racist? Not necessarily. But, it does cast a darker shadow on him than Burlingame, along with Oakes and Reynolds, would like to have appear.
That in turn leads one to be skeptical of Burlingame's efforts to sanitize some of Lincoln's older — and some White House-era — comments.
On the colonization, I think Lincoln probably pushed it primarily because he was worried about post-Civil War America. But, did that mean there was only so much lifting he wanted to do on civil rights, and beyond civil rights, on broader societal reform? Remember, Andy Johnson believed he was faithfully following Lincoln's "rosewater" Reconstruction strategy, also not mentioned by Burlingame, or Reynolds or Oakes.
As for racism? By his death, I think Lincoln was better than 90 percent of White Americans of his time, maybe more. Was he better than 100 percent? No. Had John Brown still been alive, we know he would be better. And, related to that? In 1848, or 1858, was Lincoln better than 90 percent of White Americans? Probably not. Maybe 75 percent.
The book gets almost 3 stars, to show it's not quite a full 3, in part because of Burlingame repeating the sins of Reynolds and Oakes. But, rather than falling below that, him collecting some lesser-known meetings that Lincoln had with Black Americans partially redeems it.
I LOVED his book about the Lincolns' marriage. But, with this? I doubt I'll read him again.
Both of them are wrong, too, and I got into a multiple email exchange argument with Oakes.
Here's the basics: Burlingame claims that LIncoln never talked **in public** about colonization after the middle or so of 1862. True as bare fact, but the ethical equivalent of a lie by omission on the big picture.
Reality? Even after Congress had cut off all money for federal support of colonization schemes in the summer of 1864, Lincoln asked his Attorney General, Edward Bates, in the fall of 1864 if 1862 Congressional legislation allowed him to still push colonization without funding.
Then, Ben Butler claimed that, the week of Lincoln's assassination, the president mentioned the idea of reviving the Panama colonization effort to him. Yes, Butler is not the most reliable person, and he said that years later, but it has been confirmed that he met Lincoln on the date in question, at the White House.
We don't know Bates' response to Lincoln, but if Butler is correct, that would corroborate that he gave Lincoln a green light.
Does that make Lincoln a racist? Not necessarily. But, it does cast a darker shadow on him than Burlingame, along with Oakes and Reynolds, would like to have appear.
That in turn leads one to be skeptical of Burlingame's efforts to sanitize some of Lincoln's older — and some White House-era — comments.
On the colonization, I think Lincoln probably pushed it primarily because he was worried about post-Civil War America. But, did that mean there was only so much lifting he wanted to do on civil rights, and beyond civil rights, on broader societal reform? Remember, Andy Johnson believed he was faithfully following Lincoln's "rosewater" Reconstruction strategy, also not mentioned by Burlingame, or Reynolds or Oakes.
As for racism? By his death, I think Lincoln was better than 90 percent of White Americans of his time, maybe more. Was he better than 100 percent? No. Had John Brown still been alive, we know he would be better. And, related to that? In 1848, or 1858, was Lincoln better than 90 percent of White Americans? Probably not. Maybe 75 percent.
The book gets almost 3 stars, to show it's not quite a full 3, in part because of Burlingame repeating the sins of Reynolds and Oakes. But, rather than falling below that, him collecting some lesser-known meetings that Lincoln had with Black Americans partially redeems it.
I LOVED his book about the Lincolns' marriage. But, with this? I doubt I'll read him again.
More...