Michael Burlingame - Lincoln and the Civil War

Michael Burlingame, professor history at the Univ. of Illinois at Springfield, is one of our leading Lincoln scholars.  He is the author of the last 2-volume biography of Lincoln.  He is also, if this book is an example, a Lincoln hagiographer.  It seems that historians either love Lincoln or they hate him. Is there a balanced treatment of Lincoln out there anywhere?

The author begins by stating the case that the Confederates had the advantage as the war began.  The North had to attack and conquer a vast geography; the South needed only to hold until the North gave up subduing their fellow citizens. (The Introduction)

Everyone agrees that the North had the advantage in manpower and economic resources, but these advantages were not enough to offset the South's inherent advantages---their geography, their will to defend their homeland, the possibility of European recognition.  So what gave the North the ultimate resource to win the war?  Here is the author's thesis: the difference is the North had Abraham Lincoln.  (The Introduction)

Historian David Potter famously mused that if the two sides had exchanged presidents, the South might have won its independence.  (The Introduction)

That Lincoln was more eloquent than Davis in communicating the North's war aims goes without saying.

The author seems to think that Lincoln's sterling character was the leading thing that got him elected in 1860.  P. 11

Reading this book you'd think that A. Lincoln never made a mistake.

Lincoln's opposition to the Crittenden Compromise help to defeat it.  P. 15

Of course, Lincoln properly communicated his peaceful intentions to the South before his inauguration and did not shy about selecting the best qualified for his cabinet even if they were strong personalities.  Lincoln could never make a mistake, could he?

Lincoln felt that war was better than two confederacies.  Was he right?  P. 31

The North was less prepared for war at the outset than the South.  P. 32

Who freed the slaves?  The scholarly debate will never end.  P. 100

Lincoln was politically conservative certainly to the extent that he believed in slow, gradual change.  In his last public speech which led to the actions of John Wilkes Booth he suggested limited black suffrage in Louisiana which leads historians like Burlingame and Foner to see Lincoln moving in a liberal direction toward envisioning a biracial society.  Maybe so, but we'll never know just how far Lincoln might progressed had he lived.