Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals:  The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.  New York:  Simon & Schuster, 2005.  944 pp.

 

      Historians generally characterize Abraham Lincoln’s emergence as a political figure in the newly formed Republican Party after 1858 because of his eloquence and stand on slavery through the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of that year during the Illinois race for the Senate.  They claim that Lincoln’s relative obscurity, firm but moderate stand on slavery, Whig credentials, reputation as an eloquent speaker, and a representative of the growing West convinced the Republican Party to nominate him as their candidate for president in 1860.[1]  As president Lincoln selected brilliant and strong-willed cabinet members who represented various factions of the Republican Party and regarded him as a backwoods politician they could easily control.  These cabinet members believed that they should be president.  Lincoln moved swiftly to establish his own authority and violated or circumvented Congress, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court to achieve Union victory in the Civil War.[2]

      Historians tend to explain Lincoln’s movement away from a cautious, moderate view about the emancipation of slavery because of the rising influence of the so-called Radicals within the Republican Party and Congress who wanted to “use the war to abolish slavery immediately and completely.”  They assume that Lincoln recognized this rising influence and decided “to seize the leadership of the rising antislavery sentiment himself.”[3]  Lincoln’s role in the Union victory in the Civil War, in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, and in espousing a sympathetic and pragmatic reconstruction plan, and his assassination earned him immediate martyrdom and a place in the pantheon of great American presidents.[4]

      Doris Kearns Goodwin, in her recently published biography about Lincoln entitled Team of Rivals, modifies and takes issue with some traditional and recent treatments by historians about the sixteenth president.  She expands the use of traditional primary sources to the untapped reservoir of the published and unpublished letters, notes, and diaries of Lincoln’s friends, rivals, enemies, and their families.  As a result, she widens the lens and sees the image of Lincoln as a self-confident, highly ambitious, pragmatic, and scrupulous politician.  She argues that Lincoln won the Republican presidential nomination in 1860 not by chance, but because he was the “shrewdest and canniest” of all his rivals.[5]

      After winning the presidency Lincoln filled his cabinet with his more well-known political rivals and former Democrats.  He won over his rivals through his political talents, personality, self-deprecation, and patient temperament, and became the undisputed captain of this highly unusual cabinet.  He possessed an incomparable understanding of presidential powers, managed to keep his governing coalition in Congress intact, and had a masterful sense of timing.  Goodwin counters the belief that Lincoln was immobilized by depression and adds that he dispelled the anxieties of his cabinet members and lifted their spirits during perilous times.  Lincoln “refused to be provoked by petty grievances, to submit to jealousy, or to brood over perceived slights.”[6]

      According to Goodwin, Lincoln used his sudden national recognition following the debates with Stephen Douglas to travel to various sections of the country, especially New York and New England, for speaking engagements, thus gaining greater recognition and supporters.  He used his supporters and the logistics and excitement of having the Republican national convention in Chicago, Illinois to outmaneuver his opponents and win the Republican nomination.  He relied on capable lieutenants to woo convention delegates without personal indictments against his opponents.[7]

      Lincoln arrived at his decision to abolish slavery not as an attempt to seize leadership of the issue from the Radicals in Congress, but more as a way to diffuse abolition as a divisive and polarizing issue and to remove the value of slavery to the Confederacy’s prosecution of the war.  The Confederacy used slaves to support its economy and to construct defenses against Union armies.  Lincoln’s final decision on emancipation, which was expressed as an executive order and not a Congressional act that freed slaves only in Confederate territory, was based on military necessities and the desire not to offend the border states so as to push them into the arms of the Confederacy.  Goodwin points out that Lincoln had been a fervent proponent of free labor and by 1863 became convinced that victory in the war depended on emancipation in the Confederacy and gradual abolition elsewhere.  Moreover, Lincoln, attempting to empathize with the position of blacks, believed that Congress should allocate funds to colonize blacks in Central America.  Goodwin explains that as Lincoln communicated and met with black leaders, he discarded the idea of colonization, gained a deeper understanding of blacks’ desire for freedom and loyalty to the United States, and eventually embraced complete emancipation.[8]

      Goodwin’s book is the result of prodigious research over a ten-year period and is more than a biography of Lincoln, but multiple biographies about his rivals.  Reviewers acknowledge Goodwin’s accomplishment; however, they present several criticisms about her interpretations and omissions.  Brian John Murphy praises the book, but opines that the balanced treatment of Lincoln and rivals retreats to the background when the narrative reaches the Civil War period and Lincoln takes center stage.[9]  Hans Morgenthau and David Hein point out that Goodwin makes numerous errors in quoting and citing sources, but not to the degree that she made errors that dogged her following the publication of her book on the Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys.  They add that Goodwin failed to understand and penetrate the essence of Lincoln’s deep Calvinist faith which played a major role in his political makeup and decisions during the Civil War.[10]

EXPLANATION ABOUT THE BOOK-REVIEW ASSIGNMENT

 

The narrative above is the example you should follow in writing the review of the book as part of your research for the Research Paper.  Your review should consist of at least five full paragraphs.  Listed below is what each paragraph should contain.  Be sure to cite the sources of information used for your review.

 

1.        Setting the scene:  Use the textbook or another source to establish what is the common view about the subject of the book for review.  I used two paragraphs to establish what is known about Lincoln as it relates to the information and topics in the book for review.

2.        Establish what the author wants to show and prove:  This is usually covered in the Introduction to the book.

3.        Examples from the book for review:  I used two paragraphs to show what the author says about Lincoln, his rivals, and major historical decisions during the Civil War.

4.        What the author claims to have shown and proven:  This is usually conveyed in the last chapter, conclusion, or epilogue.

5.        Scholarly review of the book:  Find a review or two about the book and present any praises and criticisms.  Criticisms are excellent ways to get a balanced picture about the book.   



[1] Alan Brinkley, American History:  A Survey, Eleventh Edition (New York:  McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2003), 365-367.

[2] Brinkley, 379.

[3] Brinkley, 380.

[4] Brinkley, 411-412.

[5] Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals:  The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (New York:  Simon & Schuster, 2005), xv-xvi.

[6] Goodwin, xvi-xvii.

[7] Goodwin, 248, 243-254, 462-463.

[8] Goodwin, 463-472.

[9] Doris Kearns Goodwin, review of Team of Rivals, by Brian John Murphy, America’s Civil War, Vol. 19, Issue 19 (March 2006), in https://research.flagler.edu:911/citation.asp?tb=1&-ug=sid+6EB966CF%2D5F6E%D424... (4 March 2006).

[10] Doris Kearns Goodwin, review of Team of Rival, by David Hein and Hans J. Morgenthau, Christian Century, Vol. 122, Issue 24 (29 November 2005): 42, in https://research.flagler.edu:9165/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+4017DF02%2D8A4B%2D410... (4 March 2006).