Introduction
I try to read at least one book concerned with American history every summer. Last year, I tackled McCullough’s popular John Adams, which was really well done. I was led to read something on Lincoln this year, so I picked up Stephen Oates’ With Malice Toward None, a book published in the 70’s, but still one of the classic biographies of the epic figure.
It was a relatively strong book. Some of the writing got a little flowery or emotional when it didn’t feel appropriate. Also, it wasn’t always clear when a quotation was woven into the sentence whether Oates was citing the words of Lincoln or simply citing another historical book. But I was happy with the pace. Great proof that the book did a good job “being a book” was the fact that I was significantly emotional during the narrative of the day of his assassination. Compared to the Adams’ bio, I didn’t get the fullest picture of Lincoln’s personal life and inner thoughts. But Adams wrote copious letters and journaled throughout the majority of his life, while Lincoln did neither.
Lincoln, The Man
Lincoln spent much of his young adult and adult trying to distance himself from his past. It was a childhood of an intense and immense poverty only tolerable by the very poor. Good ole' Abe (who hated the name “Abe,” as he saw it as a “poor man’s name”) was very conscious of the social respect for lawyers and politicians. He didn't deny this was some of the appeal. When he became a real candidate for the presidency, he was interviewed for a short bio. He said very, very little about his childhood, stating that nothing really needed to be said about it.
Lincoln suffered from bouts of deep depression, something they referred to during that time as “hypochondria.” He was an extreme conversationalist (apparently enjoyed telling rather lewd jokes), but he could also be very much an isolationist, especially when he had “a bad case of the hypo.” One of the other human elements is Lincoln’s lack of personal confidence; he constantly second-guessed himself, viewing himself as a failure at many points in his life. Unlike the statuesque and statesman’s stoicism we usually attribute to the man, he battled with a poor self-image, even as president.
I connect this inner demon of self-doubt to John Adams, who, after appearing in public with unflinching confidence, would journal about not being liked, or thinking people thought him silly, or other like things. Perhaps this sort of self-doubt, coupled with a determination to continue and persevere in spite of it, is a mark of strong man and leader: Perhaps this sort of humility prevents hubris, which can prove myopic; perhaps it can help keep people constantly attentive to the truth of the situation. I’m interesting to see if this quality is common in other accounts I read in the future.
Through the humanizing picture Oates paints, we get an authentic and principled man. It’s a sort of authenticity and principle I doubt could be attributed to almost any modern politicians. Now, perhaps I’m not giving modern politicians enough credit; or more possibly, I’m believing too much in the words of someone like Oates. However, I’m fine with the narrative I read, fictitious or not.
Lincoln's Racism, and Racism of the Times
What I was struck by was the extreme racism of Lincoln, at least by modern standards. He didn’t see the slaves as having much intellectual promise; because of this fact, he didn’t want to give them much political power. He was against interracial marriage. He said it disgusted him. He thought a country of mulattos was bound to fail. Also, he was afraid of freeing the slaves since he sympathized with the fear that black men would be very prone to rape white women. There was, though, a sense of the “older brother” racism in him: Blacks are lower and less than us, but it’s our responsibility to care for them because of this, and not take advantage of it.
What set him apart from other racists was his firm belief that what made the blacks and whites equal was their sharing in the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He didn’t think they were, or should be, equal is many other areas; but slavery was wrong because it violated the “Declaration of Independence.” Interestingly, the way a lot of pro-slavery politicians got around this fact was that they insisted that the writers of the “Declaration” and “Constitution” were speaking only of whites when they wrote that “all men are created equal.” They had a point, since the Constitution protected slavery. Also, how could they have meant blacks and whites were really equal if they said in so many other documents that they didn’t believe they were equal? But Lincoln’s insistence on arguing against this line of thought, along with his resolve in seeing slavery as the principal moral sin of America, was what made him the man he was.
The Birth of the Republican Party
Another interesting historical account you get in the book is the beginning of the Republican party. It was a bipartisan – Whigs and Democrats – party joined by the belief that the Nebraska-Kansas Act was unconstitutional and would lead the country to disaster. The act championed state supremacy in an effort to allow new territories to choose to be pro-slavery or not, despite the fact that the Missouri Compromise said there would not be slavery above a certain geographical line. Lincoln insisted that the founders allowed slavery to exist only because they knew it would eventually die out if only allowed in the states where it already existed. Lincoln thought this would eventually happen, even if not in his lifetime. But the Nebraska-Kansas Act threatened this eventual death by allowing slavery to grow and prosper.
These beginning Republicans agreed that the federal government could in fact weigh in on slavery issues in all states, as long as they acted constitutionally. The Democrats sought to limit government control and power, calling the Republican party the beginnings of a totalitarian regime. Oh, how the tables have turned.
Final Thoughts
Do I recommend the book? Yes. Since I have no other Lincoln bio to point to instead, this proved a good look into the life, person, and politics of a hugely influential and important American figure. It also proved an interesting look into the incredibly unique ideas and beliefs of an age that, although not so distant, feels almost medieval.
What American figure should I tackle next? Jefferson? MLK?
