Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery - The Fiery Trial

Dr. Eric Foner is a prolific and expert American historian. Aside from textbooks, he has published widely on American Slavery, Reconstruction and the Civil War. Foner, in 2010, won the Pulitzer Prize for his "The Fiery Trial." This book is a gem which is essential reading for those wanting to explore the thinking on slavery in the mind of the genius Abraham Lincoln, the Great Empancipator.
Lincoln was always against slavery since the trips he took in his youth to New Orleans where he saw slaves chained together and being sold down South. However, as a canny politicain the tall Kentuckian was keenly aware of the difficulties of dealing with slavery. Among the stages of Lincoln's journey to becoming the author of the Emancipation Proclamation, Foner goes into great microhistorical detail in explaining the issues involved in the complex problem of chattel slavery in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Foner sees Lincoln's growth as moving from:
a. A belief in colonization for America.s 4,000,000 slaves to Africa and the Caribbean. This plan never worked nor did it meet with approbation from a majority of abolitionists calling for immediate emancipation.
b. Lincoln's plan of gradual empancipation which would extend to 1900 whereby slaveholders in the border states and south would be compensated for the freeing of their slaves never caught hold.
c. With the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 slaves living in the Confederacy were automatically freed by presidential fiat. Slaves held in the Union's border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Delexware, Maryland and parts of the South which had been freed through Union conquest in battle ensured the gradual freedom of America's African-Americans.
d. Lincoln lived to see the passage of the 13th Amendment granting freedom to slaves being held in bondage.
Anyone who wishes to study slavery in the ante-bellum and Civil War era must read this book which is a sine qua non of erudite scholarship on the subject. Eric Foner is a national treasure and this work on Lincoln and American slavery is destined to become a classic. Essential and thought-provoking!

This is a very fine rendition of civil war history focusing on the popular and legal status of slaves and the institution of slavery. I will be sure to obtain a copy of Foner's work on reconstruction.

It's very informative, filled with well researched, densely packed descriptions and history.
It's very focused with all diversion to military history economics or foreign relations are well related to the slavery issue. There is excellent informative historical sequencing, especially the development of Lincoln's opinions from about 1838 to the end of his life. The book is especially good in tracing the sequence and significance of emancipation related legislation during the civil war. The Fugitive Slave Law was still being enforced in 1861 after the first secessions. It wasn't repealed until 1864. Civil war legislation involved slaves as contrabands, martial law, the two Confiscation Acts, evolution of the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Thirteenth Amendment debates in the Senate and House as well as being especially informative on the ratification process, both North and South. It also introduces the Lincoln and Johnson efforts on early reconstruction.

I did find one point of disagreement in the book (page 204). "Abolition in the territories, ..., affected only a handful of slaves." That seems like saying that the Dred-Scott decision affected only one slave. Limiting expansion of slavery in the territories affected the status and future of slavery and every slave in the country, as Lincoln and slave owners well knew. Foner doesn't clarify his point that slavery in the territories was already limited in numbers by the uncertainty of legislation.

This review is limited to a few impressions and questions as there are excellent expert reviews available. See for example the one by Alan Guelzo. Another is by Thomas DiLorezo in Barron's, Jan 1, 2011. Though I admire DiLorezo's independence of thought regarding Lincoln and the civil war, I think his review finds a few quibbles in Foner's work so as to promote his own point of view. I do agree with him that current popular historiography tends to over sanctify Lincoln for his accomplishment in ending slavery. This book, while admiring Lincoln's humanity and political ability, is a fine historical analysis without sanctifying or over dramatizing Lincoln's role. It shows, perhaps better than any other that I've read, that no simplistic view of Lincoln works.

This work takes a different perspective on the life of Lincoln than what is normally available out there with traditional works like Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals". Instead of simply focusing on Lincoln's role in helping to win the Civil War during a most difficult chapter in America's history, Foner steps back to look at how he evolved politically over the earlier times with critical issues such as emancipation and the constitution. The profile Foner establishes is one of very cautious career-minded politician who, during his rise to power in the 1850s, took his time in feeling his way through a veritable tanglewood of public controversy over where to draw the line on the liberation of black slaves. Based on one of his other works - "Reconstruction" - that I am currently reading - this historian believes in meticulously probing history for evidence of change. The context for understanding any complex public figure, such as Lincoln, is based on an accurate and thorough piecing together of the essential shifts in his or her varied life. What Foner determines is that Lincoln, as he asserted himself as an important national politician, was never an out-and-out abolitionist and that his championing of the 1863 Emancipation Act was more the fortuitous outcome of a tortuous effort to keep the republic from further dividing during a bloody civil war. Lincoln's road to Washington over a decade is well documented in the book. The reader gets to see how a virtually self-made man made his way from the backwoods of frontier Kentucky to the Illinois legislature to the US Congress to the White House as a Whig moderate whose platform was to seek a unifying position on redressing slavery. Foner does a commendable job in showing how Lincoln, both as a politician and lawyer, saw the need to seek a compromise that would not only end this evil but prevent the nation from splitting apart. Finding little support in the ranks of the Northern Democrats or Reform Whigs, Lincoln, with his enormous oratorical skills, helped to create the Republican Party in the late 1850s as the organization that would objectively address the need to prevent slavery from spreading west, promote the need for compensation for slave owners, keep states from seceding from the Union, and launch his presidency in 1860. In all this, nothing was clear or straight forward from the outset. Everything had to pass through the fiery furnace of adversity before it could stand the test of time.

This book slows down the most dynamic period in American history, while dealing with the most-sensitive of topics- race. The author has captured myriad, little-known historical details to reveal the uncertainty and anxiety of the time, and the hard choices that the Civil War generation had to face over 5 crucial years in American history (1860-65). He author relies on the perfect mix of historical analysis and quotes from primary sources to enlighten readers. A must-read for anyone curious about how the race/slavery debate evolved during the Civil War from tolerance of slavery to outright abolition.

This book tells it like it really happened. It doesn't misquote or leave out very very important messages Lincoln conveyed. Like his impression of the Dred Scott case, and the Kansas-Nebraska act. I love these people that quote Thomas DiLorenzo as a great writer. DiLorenzo and Bennett neither one has one thing good to say about Lincoln. I admit all the Lincoln worship has gone way overboard, and it is good to get another perspective. If you do decide to read someone like Thomas DiLorenzo, you need to buy the book that rejects his flaws - Lincoln Vindicated. In fact what I liked so much about Eric Foners book, is that he shatters the myths that people like Bennett and DiLorenzo have tried to convince people of during the last few decades, and he shatters them without bashing one of these guys. He presents a stong word for word case of what Lincoln really said at the time, not what people thought he meant a hundred years later. He does not sugar coat anything. I learned quite a few new things from reading this book. Mr. Foner does not leave out negative details - he looks at the good and the bad. Several things Lincoln stood up for I had no idea, and a few times he shocked me at what seemed to be a slap in the face against civil rights. As you read the book you will become aware of the border states population, and why he walked a tightrope not to make the border states mad enough to leave. He honestly believed If Kentucky joined the confederates, then so would the other border states, and that would have cause massive problems - He probably would have lost the war or the election of 1864. I have always read and heard, Lincoln Changed his views on Slavery and Civil Rights - this book shows this to be very true. He was becoming more liberal in his views on race up until the last speech he gave. Lincoln started to clearly start to speak out on slavery beginning with the death of his beau Henry Clay. If Lincoln had stated the things he said in 1865, back in 1860, he would have never been elected President. This book shows that to be true. It also shows that unlike Lincoln, President Johnson didn't stand up to the plate or move forward - he withdrew unlike Lincoln. Anyway the book goes into all kinds of detail. Very readable and honest.

Eric Foner's The Fiery Trial, is a deservedly acclaimed examination of Abraham Lincoln's attitudes toward slavery. Perhaps even more importantly, by contextualizing the debate in Illinois, circa 1850-1860, the first half of the book show the reader and student of history how Lincoln was both ahead of and behind the times. Foner's Lincoln is a shrewd, decent and honorable man. But one not above putting interest before principle when he agrees to defend (unsuccessfully) a slave-owners attempt to get his "property" returned from Illinois. And one, like so many of his time, who was prone to a casual racism that is comfortable with the use of demeaning racial epithets and degrading racial humor.

Despite these drawbacks Lincoln by 1858 evolved into a solid opponent of our "peculiar" institution and one of the few politicians in the country who presents himself as something less than a radical abolitionist but more than a simple free-soil republican. If there is a flaw in Foner's book it was here that I wished there was more discussion about the extraordinary accomplishment of Abolitionists. In a short ten year period they moved the question of slavery from the back-burner of American politics to the forefront of American consciousness. Foner notes that so urgent did the question of slavery seem at the time that the 1858 senatorial contest between Lincoln and Douglas was a single-issue contest, with slavery and race practically the sole concern.

Even half a chapter examining the radicalism of the Sumners, Sewards, Cases, Giddingses and Chases--the fire brands who affected this extraordinary shift--would have been extremely helpful. The occasional comparison to Seward seemed insufficient. There is a brief but important discussion of how the efforts of slavery's advocates--Pierce, Buchanan, Taney & Co., seriously misjudged the temperature of the nation and foolishly overreached. Lincoln, nicely positioned between radical Sumner and reactionary Buchanan is the, when you think about it, not-so-surprising candidate of the new and burgeoning Republican party.

Foner does an excellent job of linking the Party's growth and Lincoln's development as an anti-slavery man. The great abolitionists of the day may have been generations ahead of their time. However, what was needed was at that time was a cool head that could serve as a beacon to the middle course--one a majority (not merely the saints or the sinners) could rally around. In that regard, Lincoln was superb. Never backing down from his position but never provoking secession, Lincoln lets the South stumble toward Civil War understanding that the North was not ready to go to war to abolish slavery, but would fight to sustain the Union.

His gradual, some would say snail's pace towards publicly condemning slaveholders and the institution occasionally infuriated radicals but in retrospect seems sound. Surprising to me and important to evaluating Lincoln, is our 16th president's strange obsession with re-colonization and the outrageous claim that the country wouldn't be at war if there weren't any slaves. As though they had asked to be enslaved. A classic and embarrassing instance of blaming the victim. Here, Foner excels and never lets Lincoln the myth interfere with assessing Lincoln the reality. As Lincoln engaged with more and more African Americans his opinions evolved but clearly Reconstruction would have been considerably different and perhaps more moderate had he lived. Certainly he would have been more respected and politically adept than Andrew Johnson.

When first rating this book I gave it four stars. I wished there was more about the abolitionists. Rereading my own review perhaps it should be five. Eric Foner has written his own book about Lincoln, Slavery and Race, not mine. And his is really pretty great.

We live in an era when a politician is condemned as a "flip-flopper" for having an open mind and allowing stands on issues to change as circumstances change. Foner's very thoughtful study of Lincoln's evolving views on race and slavery, and of the political choices that Lincoln made, should be a strong counter-argument to that simplistic way of thinking. The problem for readers like us is that no matter how nuanced the account of the arc of Lincoln's life may be, we know too much about where the story of race in America was heading - toward Civil War, Reconstruction, and beyond. Whenever we see personal attitudes in Lincoln that history later would condemn, it always is unsettling. That reaction, however, should lead us to redouble our own efforts in our own lives to keep an open mind and to question our assumptions, always open to the possibility that we might not have the complete answer.

Abraham Lincoln marched a long way from his early days in Illinois politics to his election to the Presidency in 1860, on the eve of the Civil War. During this journey, he shifted his position on the slavery issue, at first gradually and then, during the midst of the heaviest battles of the war, far more radically. He started in the 1830's and '40's avoiding any association with abolitionists. In fact, Lincoln did not comment fully on slavery until 1842, well after joining the Whig party, led by the Great Compromiser, Henry Clay. He was never as far advanced as Clay on the abomination of slavery as an institution and, in fact, his political career came to a temporary halt after retiring from Congress in 1849. He said little about slavery for the next five years. By 1854, the political ambition in Lincoln began to stir again and he delivered a strong and effective speech in Peoria against Senator Douglas' Kansas-Nebraska Act, which left the slavery issue up to popular vote, not to the predetermined line, north of which slavery would be prohibited, created by the Missouri Compromise in 1820.

From this point forward, Lincoln's thought process on the slavery issue became more refined and more aggressive. The process of the gradual shift in Lincoln's position, as his political power grew, is the theme of this important work by Professor Eric Foner, one of the most important American historians. It is in the debates of 1858 against Stephan Douglas, marching up and down the length of the state of Illinois, that Lincoln's thinking crystallized into an increasingly critical view of the institution of slavery. By 1860, at the Cooper Union in New York City, Lincoln refutes the Dred Scot decision of two years earlier which held, among other things, that slaves are not "persons" but are "property". Here, he accuses the South of planning to "destroy the government." He is not, however, ready to eradicate slavery as an institution peculiar to the South. The need for the preservation of the Union, at practically any cost, is at a higher level than the fight to eradicate slavery in Lincoln's mind as he takes office in March 1861.

A number of measures were introduced, one by one, that undermined the existence of slavery as an institution. However, none of these was fully enforceable as long as the South retained its military power which, until 1863, seemed to consistently surpass that of the Union. Lincoln begins to formulate a program to free slaves, at first only in the Confederate states. He backs away from this as the war continues to go badly for the North. In fact, Lincoln veers away from a program of emancipation and becomes more serious about a plan to ship slaves to some foreign country, Haiti being Lincoln's favorite idea. The colonization program, however, is a non-starter from the beginning. Lincoln's desperation to save the Union, even if it would mean the retention of slavery, is his final act of ambiguity on the slavery issue. He writes to Horace Greeley in August 1862 that if "I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves I would do it." By the late-summer of 1862, however, the letter to Greeley notwithstanding, Lincoln begins to move more forcibly towards dismantling the slavery system and in January 1863, he issues the Emancipation Proclamation, which frees all slaves in the Confederacy. No colonization, no compensation, and all freed slaves welcome to join the Union Army.

By the summer of 1863, the Union armies, now freed from the dead hand of General George McClellan, begin to slowly exhaust the South. The Thirteenth Ammendment to the Constitution passes the Senate and the House by January 1865 and is ratified by the required number of states in December 1865. The Amendment prohibits the institution of slavery anywhere in the United States. By April 1864, Lincoln is fully on board with the urgent moral argument against slavery. "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." The war draws to a close and, only five days after Robert E. Lee surrenders his Confederate army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, Lincoln is assassinated. He has come a long distance from his primitive views of 1830 to a full realization of the injustice and moral wrong of slavery.

This is a complex story, mainly a story of ideas, many of which are understood only by closely focusing on intricate details. Foner does a superb job in tracing the arc of Lincoln's progress but, in this reader's view, disappoints in failing to place clear signposts along the road. The critical amendments to the Constitution, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth, are dealt with in a highly cursory and confusing fashion. The role of John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, perhaps the most articulate defender of the institution of slavery, and Henry Clay, the earliest national figure who questioned the legitimacy of slavery, are only marginally discussed. It is from this argument that Lincoln developed his earliest thoughts on the subject. A more complete discussion of the political situation in the country, with the Republican party winning its first national election only with the election of Lincoln in 1860, would have been useful to see how the more extreme wings of the Republican and Democratic parties affected the debate.

But it is Lincoln who remains at center stage. He is an endlessly fascinating figure in our history and Foner's concentration on his gradual shifting thoughts on the paramount issue in our country is a real contribution to understanding it.

Is there really a need for another Lincoln book? Usually not, but Foner has a different and worthwhile approach. He seeks to place Lincoln's views on slavery in the context of his times.

Lincoln is a Henry Clay Whig who believed in the gradual, compensated emancipation of slaves combined with the resettlement ("conlonization") of freed slaves in such places as South America or Africa. Like Clay, he also wanted to put some limits on the expansion of slavery into the territories. Over the course of the 1850s, however, Lincoln became convinced that the evil and corrupting effect of slavery and slave power required that slavery be excluded altogether from new territories and that the institution be put on the path to ultimate extinction. This made him a radical in the eyes of the South, and his election as President precipitated secession and the Civil War.

Abolititionists were a despised minority in the years leading up to the Civil War. Indeed, even Lincoln's more centrist position made him vulnerable politically: the race-baiters accused him of advocating intermarriage and Black equality. Lincoln stuck with the colonization idea so long because it was a politcally expedient way of dodging the civil rights issue: the issue would be moot if the freed slaves were simply sent elsewhere. But even before the War, Lincoln could not dodge the issue entirely. So he let it be known that the rights of slaves as men to be free and to be paid wages for their work were the human rights that would come from emancipation; political equality and the right to vote would not.

Even here, Lincoln was remarkably careful in how he phrased himself. He did not engage in the easy racism of the day, such as practiced by Douglas in lampooning any effort to elevate freed Blacks to the level of the Whites. He simply observed that in a biracial society, one race would dominate, and he just as soon it be the Whites who were dominant. While Lincoln's sentiments are hardly politically correct by today's standards, he couldn't have possibly been President had he advocated the full rights of citizenship for Blacks. His refusal to indulge in racism and his condemnation of slavery as an absolute evil were to his credit.

Once the South left the union, the more radical forces in the North were set free. There was no need to appease the slave power anymore, and the benefits of appealing to one's more radical base as well as the ill feeling that comes with military combat inevitably led to a huge shift in favor of emancipation and even full citizenship. Lincoln was often in a position of holding those forces back so that he could keep the border states in the Union, which led to his frequent denunciation by the more radical Republicans. Ultimately, Lincoln navigated this new political reality skillfully and, partly as leader and partly as follower, moved the nation into redefining the war as being waged for a more perfect union with the original sin of slavery excised -- and into accepting and providing for a biracial society after the war given the impracticality of colonization.

What Lincoln would have done had he lived is not clear. As Foner points out, had Lincoln died in the Spring of 1862, no one would have ever predicted his advocacy of the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment or his ability to give the Gettysburg and Second Inaugural Addresses. Although Foner does not speculate, my guess is that Lincoln would have pushed for full citizenship rights for Black veterans and other segments of freedmen -- which would have, over time, led to equality for all. Whether Lincoln would have succeeded is not at all clear.

Foner's approach is excellent. Lincoln's greatness tempts us to view him as an ahistorical figure towering over everyone and marching to his own drum -- an attitude which has resulted in some being disillusioned with Lincoln as politically incorrect on the race issue under modern standards. As if Lincoln could have simply willed away the kind of racism and political reality that ultimately required freedmen to wait 100 years in the wilderness before achieving some level of political equality. Lincoln can only be understood in the context of his times, and his ability to grow in office and to lead the nation into fundamentally changing its attitudes on slavery, race, and the nation show his true greatness.

“Fiery Trial” is the tale of Abraham Lincoln’s evolving stand on slavery. Beginning as a young man who knew few, if any, Negroes, Lincoln passed through the phase of opposing the extension of slavery to favoring its abolition with emigration to eventual openness to the admission of Freed Negroes to American society.

Lincoln’s development occurred in the body politic in which he lived. That body affected Lincoln and was shaped by him. Author Eric Foner delves into evidence of the reasons for the positions Lincoln adopted along the way. He studies how the Central Illinois incubator of Lincoln’s career shaped his early views, both from the air he breathed and votes he sought. He explores the origins of the premise that whites and blacks could not coexist in one country and how that premise made emigration of freedmen a necessary part of any emancipation scheme. He goes on to explore how the shifting winds of the war blew emigration off the table and deprived the south of its real chance of emerging from the War with its peculiar institution intact. Lincoln’s agonizing over the legality of the Emancipation Proclamation is shown as reflecting uncertain future of slavery in a post-war nation.

I think that this book does an excellent job in depicting the multiple facets that made slavery and its eradication such a complicated dilemma for the men who struggled with it. Foner’s writing style holds the readers interest through the anecdotal stories and in depth analysis. “The Fiery Trial” is an aid in understanding this core issue of our great national schism.

What is so good about this book is that it places Lincoln squarely inside the ideological and political debate over what to do about slavery and the black people in America, not just slaves, that took place before and during his lifetime. It is a well documented account of how and why his position on these two issues changed over time. It does not fall victim to portraying him as a victim of events and ideas or as a heroic innovator. It is well organized because it needs no organization. His career(s) and the events that surrounded his life supply that, so it easy to follow. It is beautifully and simply written. Lincoln did not leave much of a written record (both a curse and a blessing to an historian). But I am convinced by the documentation that it explains why Lincoln thought and acted the way he did in a very factual way. It successfully inter-relates ideas about these issues and the politics of the time -- including the politics of war -- to what he thought about and did to influence slavery and black people in America.

People on different ends of the contemporary spectrum regarding civil rights and the treatment of black people in America may not like this book because Foner really doesn't take an ideological perspective on the book. It simply tries to explain why Lincoln acted the way he did.

I was trained as a historian a long time ago, and i read a lot of history, of all kinds. This is at or near the very top.

There is not enough praise that can be heaped on this book. Where most historians seek to interpret Lincoln's view on slavery as fixed early in life, and then adapted (some would say opportunistically) to meet political and military challenges, Foner digs deeply to show how over time Lincoln's thinking - and perhaps even his soul - evolved. Lincoln becomes a very human work in progress in this book; all the more admirable for being an immense intellect open to new ideas, new people, new developments, and a healthy dose of self-critique. While I have always held Lincoln in high regard as a courageous icon of American political history, this work translates the marble statue into the flesh and blood of a real person growing intellectually and spiritually. Foner also effectively uses counterpoint between Lincoln and Frederick Douglass to show how the ongoing tension between competing worldviews - and especially very different views on African-Americans - led to positive political dialogue. In our current state of crippling political incivility, we would be well served to make this required reading for all citizens.

African-American slavery and what to do with it was the single most difficult issue of America's first one hundred years. Slavery was recognised as a 'clear and present danger' following Gabriel's uprising in 1800. Lincoln thought of it often in his life after an escaped slave working as a river pirate on the Mississippi clubbed Lincoln on the head with its reality at the age of 19 in the fall of 1828. During Lincoln's first 5 years, he won his first slavery case in his first Supreme Court appearance which gave him his solution to the issue that..."Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist..." a quote from the better angels of Thomas Jefferson. Eric Foner did not just re-write older works that have been written about over and over again. Foner included newer research that had been published as little as a year before his new book came out. Congrats ! - Carl Adams, author,
Nance: Trials of the First Slave Freed by A. Lincoln

We see Abraham Lincoln as "The Great Emancipator", who ended slavery in the United States of America. Lincoln's words describe and inspire us, remaining as current as the day they were spoke. We see Lincoln not as the man but as the larger than life occupant of the Lincoln Memorial. Lincoln's 1860 nomination is not because he is or is thought to be "The Great Emancipator". Lincoln is a moderate on slavery and race, acceptable to both wings of the party.
Abraham Lincoln's and Americans journey to emancipation is the subject of this excellent book. America faces serious divisions over slavery but very few over race. The wish to end slavery often did not include what to do with the former slaves. Northern states, with few slaves, accepted gradual emancipation and managed to tolerate their Black population. In the majority of Northern states Blacks could not vote, could not serve on a jury nor could they testify against a White person. Some Northern states essentially ban Blacks. In many more states, they are under server restrictions and required to post bonds to insure good conduct. Garrison said that Illinois is essentially a "slave state" due to the restrictive laws on Blacks.
This is a book about race relations more than about slavery. The majority agreed that slavery is "bad" but cannot see a reasonable exit. Gradual Emancipation is an acceptable answer. Slaves born after a set date become free when they become n years old. The current slaves either remain slaves or become free after n years. This pushes the race problem away, leaving it for another generation to deal with. Immediate Emancipation ends slavery but has few answers to the race question. Colonization is a popular answer. Questions on transporting four million people to Africa or some other location is not answered. Nor is the question of how many Blacks voluntary will leave the United States.
Black rights are the major problem. To avoid full citizenship, "rights" are subdivided into acceptable and unacceptable units. Natural rights, not being enslaved, being allowed to seek work and being secure in your person are acceptable because they enshrined in The Declaration of Independence. Political rights, being able to vote, serve on a jury or testify in court are questionable. The majority of Northern States say no to these rights. A few liberals accept "more intelligent Negros" as possible candidates for political rights. Social rights, being able to mix with whites as equals are not considered. Lincoln spends a good deal of his time answering Democratic attacks in this area.
This is a history of Lincoln's journey from Whig to Republican, from gradual to immediate emancipation from colonization to political rights. America move along with Lincoln, one sometimes ahead of the other but both leading and encouraging the other. It is not an easy journey nor is it a quick one.
Eric Foner is an excellent author and historian. This well-written book is informative and easy read. Forner is careful to maintain a balanced approach and never descends into bashing, Lincoln, America or the South. This should be a classic book on Lincoln and required reading.

Foner provides an in-depth scholarly work on Abraham Lincoln's s evolution of his feelings not only against slavery but goes quite a step further in documenting Lincoln's perspective of what to do with slaves once they are free and in coming to terms with their equality. This book gives an appropriate perspective of not only of Lincoln's inner feeling on African Americans but also of Lincoln's uncanny political abilities in balancing the times in regards to the issue of slavery and the ability to move forward to combat it. As Foner brings out, southern Illinois was pro-slavery and violent as exemplified by the murder of Presbyterian minister and abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy while defending his printing press from a mob. Lincoln at times, while deriding slavery was more than careful as late as his campaign for the senate against Douglas when addressing equality and rights for African American. Lincoln was adjusting his political stand for what was possible, hoping success, quite possibly his own, would develop toward a maturation toward slavery as a union certainly not as succeeded states. Foner makes this clear in Lincoln's own writings as he stated many times that he would not do what the Constitution would not allow. Thus Lincoln pledged not to interfere with the southern states and slavery but to seek a ban on its expansion. Although the south were not at all empathetic towards Lincoln's position, Lincoln was also getting criticism from many abolitionists such as Horace Greeley and to the surprise of many that read this book, Frederick Douglas. Foner covers Lincoln's view on colonization, a reality that post war whites might not be tolerant of former slaves, the effects of African Americans fight for the Union has on Lincoln, Lincoln's war time political emancipation in contrast to the 13th amendment passed later, his plan to compensate the south (tried in Delaware) and an interesting view of Lincoln's 10% plan on creating a minor union plurality in former confederate states during the war. Foner provides a perspective on all these issues often using Lincoln's own words and he provides numerous excerpts from Lincoln's speeches and letters, many-made public. There's no doubt that after Lincoln sent African Americans to battle, that he was going to curtail their post war freedom, but it wasn't automatic. Lincoln's position was even still evolving at the time of his death but by the time he strolled through captured Richmond with now free slaves flocking to him as 'Father Abraham", there's no doubt that he was going to provide them an opportunity for equality, but he knew that it couldn't be instantaneous in all parts of the country. This is again a scholarly work, best for those who appreciate a serious study of Lincoln.

This blend of political history and biography is the most recent book that tackles Abraham Lincoln and the politics of slavery. Allen Guelzo (Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, 2004) suggests Lincoln was the wily moderate who earned his title as Great Emancipator. Richard Striner (Father Abraham, 2006) presents Lincoln as a clear-eyed radical who had been determined to end slavery since the 1850s, and Paul Escott ("What Shall We Do With the Negro?", 2009) argues that Lincoln was a reluctant conservative who only favored emancipation when events forced his hand.

In contrast, this is a study of Lincoln's change over time. Lincoln never stopped growing and his fluid anti-slavery ideology cannot be reduced to a simple label. His growth in search of ways to promote anti-slavery was constrained by his respect for the conservative political and constitutional order that protected it from frontal assault. A matrix of rights, discussed earlier in Foner's Free Soil, informs his analysis. Although Republicans agreed to oppose slavery's extension, in other aspects of anti-slavery ideology their opinions varied. Almost all agreed blacks were entitled to the natural rights described in the Declaration of Independence and most were supportive of free black civil rights that secured person and property, but fewer supported black political rights, and the concept of social equality was almost beyond the pale.

Foner devotes about a third of his book to Lincoln's earlier career in Illinois, one of the most racially conservative northern states. Lincoln's conservatism was evident when he denied during one of the 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas that he favored political or social equality for blacks. For Foner, this should not be used as evidence to try to describe Lincoln as a racist in modern terms; it instead puts us in the historical context of where Lincoln--and the electorate--stood in the Old Northwest prior to the Civil War.

Foner's discussion of Lincoln's early presidency initially echoes Escott's account of a conservative caught between Radical Republicans and border state interests. He eventually sided with radicals to make abolition of slavery a central war aim, yet his intermittent but repeated embrace of colonization suggests his ambivalence about the future role for free blacks. In contrast, he also advocated suffrage for many black soldiers. A consistent and linear narrative is not possible, and Reconstruction planning was in flux at the time of Lincoln's death. What is clear is that Lincoln's early anti-slavery views changed as he grappled with the war, worked with Radical Republicans, met black leaders, and focused his attention on the question of what a post-war society would look like.

What is unknowable because of Lincoln's assassination is how a dialogue with Congress and black leaders would have shaped Reconstruction in the president's second term. Foner suggests that it likely would have involved federal protection of basic civil rights and limited suffrage. While historians may speculate, evidence suggests that Lincoln's ideas were not fixed and should not be reduced to a facile label of conservative, moderate, or liberal. This book is sparkling in its analysis, rich in context, and fair to its subject.

--Eric Gubelman
University of Tennessee

Believe all the good reviews. This study of Lincoln's evolving opinions and policies about slavery is highly readable and truly epic. Lincoln emerges here as a flawed hero--a man of his age with all the misperceptions and errors that entails, yet a man who was remarkably open throughout his presidency to new thoughts and ideas. Instead of being intransigent like many politicians of yesterday and today, as his breadth of experience widened and he learned more, he modified his beliefs and policies accordingly. Did he go as far as he should have in ending slavery and advocating equality? Absolutely not, but you walk away from this book admiring much about Lincoln and viewing his assassination as even more tragic than you realized. You feel like with Lincoln we would have at least stood the chance of getting reconsruction and equality right far sooner than we actually did.

Whew! Be warned -- this book is not light reading. It is in fact long and a bit tedious. But it's very complete and convincing. It chronicles the development of Lincoln's thinking on slavery and equality -- thoughts which evolved rapidly once the Civil War began.

I learned much about the legal issues surrounding slavery and about racism in 19th century America. I was surprised to learn that even Lincoln, by today's standards, would be considered racist when first elected. He was no abolitionist - at least not initially. But to his credit, Lincoln had a willingness to reconsider his views and adapt as wisdom required. He balanced pragmatism and idealism, and I suspect some political purists today who claim his heritage would brand him a "flip-flopper". While governing, Lincoln always put constitutional duty before personal values. He was a great man, and the country is significantly better off today because of him.

Clearly, this book is well written, well-researched, and exquisitely reasoned. It presents facts in an easy-to understand fashion. There is little doubt that it is the seminal work on Lincoln’s changing attitudes towards slavery and the black race in America. There is no reason to give it anything less than five stars. It is everything one would expect from a Columbia University history professor and definitely worthy of the Pulitzer and the other accolades it has received.

Despite the excellence of Dr. Foner’s book, it may not be for everyone. For the casual reader of history, like me, there might be just too much information to make it a compelling read. That said, I admit that it was never boring, and I learned a great deal of Lincoln’s struggles with the slavery question. I will be thinking about what I’ve read here for a long time.

Recommend: Yes.

I always had a preconceived notion as Lincoln the Great Emancipator and one of the greatest presidents. This books brings me up sharp. He was a savvy politician who at times went this way or the other way concerning slavery. He seems to hve hated it but his idea of ending it was to stop the spread of it to the territories and colonizing the blacks to keep them from mingling with the whites in the states. He certainly had no problems with the Dred Scott decision or the Confiscation Act. He might have "ended" slavery but I wonder if his racism towards black ended with his death. Hating slavery and freeing them is not the same as not being racist. I know people change and Lincoln did change.

He was not adverse to compromising and being unable to stand up to political hacks forcing political hack appointments of inept,to say the least, generals.

He was human and not the god we were taught he was. But did his assassination elevate him as JFK's assassination elevate him to almost saintliness?

The book is wonderful reading because I keep changing my opinion of Lincoln as he appears to be changing towards blacks. But did he ever come around to thinking they were as equal in talent, bravery, intelligence as whites? I need to read more about this fascinating and complex man.

I'm glad I read this book.
Beforehand I'd been just another person reared on the sanctified image of Lincoln - as a man of full of American vigor and naturally disposed against the injustices of slavery . . .
Foner dynamites such myths early on in this work, which is purely a political biography with no coverage of personal, family or occupational events.
It was for me a very hard read owing to the rigorous detailing of events and the contemporaneous commentaries on the them by correspondants of the the time.
But I'm glad that I persevered.
Lincoln's long and often unsteady walk from Illinois lawyer with all the social prejudices of his upbringing to the man who determinedly emancipated negroes is charted with impressive skill and candor. Neither Lincoln's essentially politician's viewpoint - always seeming to be close to the centre of popular opinion - nor his own policy pipedreams like colonization and indentured 'apprenticeships' are excused by the author.
Foner's meticulous research and critical analysis identifies Lincoln's most marked virtue not as idealism, nor even radicalism, but simply a determination to always make new policy departures that brought the majority of the people with him; then to be flexible enough to amend - or even abandon if necessary - unworkable or unpopular policies. Lincoln's capacity to listen to criticism, recognise new realities impacting on his policies and above all else to "grow" his political vision in the very midst of challenging times were his greatest political strengths.

The only negatives are the - perhaps too academic - writing style which makes one think a bit harder to follow the author's line of reasoning; and the author's overreliance on editorials of the time as a gauge of American popular mood. I think that the latter fault is something that the author might seek to improve by use of contemporaneous diaries, newspaper accounts of less formal meetings and events and careful perusal of economic decisions whose outcomes depended a lot on resolution - one way or another - of the slavery question.

But despite its faults, this book is a very worthy read for those wanting to get a grasp of the real Lincoln, as well as for those interested in pre-civil war American history.

I found this book very informative, if not always gripping in style. There are occasional redundancies, but not to an annoying extent. I only hope I'll manage to retain a good portion of what I learned about Lincoln's views of and actions concerning slavery.

I've always loved Abraham Lincoln and have been reading about him since I was 8 years old. From my earliest days I've known that he was central in keeping the Union together in the darkest days of our country and this essentially ended slavery. I've also known that his view of African Americans was complicated.

This book was perfect for me. Eric Foner provides an understanding of President Lincoln as a complicated man: he opposed slavery because he believed nobody should trade his gifts to make someone else rich. At the same time he never believed that we as a nation would accept blacks and whites as equals in the same society.

The best part of this book was the understanding that Lincoln came to understand that slavery was so evil as to trump anything else. His early beliefs that former slaves would return to Africa soon came to an end as he acknowledged that this was unworkable. The heroism of President Lincoln was that he was determined to free the slaves regardless of anything else. Just as Moses died before the Israelites came into the Promised Land, Abraham Lincoln died at the brink of Reconstruction.

This book shows that Abraham Lincoln is a national saint, and that we would have done much better if he had been President during Reconstruction.

Yes, this book is required reading, as many comprehending reviewers here observe.
I would like to point out other reasons, ones that pertain more to the context into which the book has been released: today's poisonous political climate.
This book chronicles the great trial that individuals, and then a nation, must undergo to fully realize their greatest aspirations. How difficult is such change? If an issue as repellant, shameful and despicable as slavery cannot be expunged except by war, how are less heinous but still shameful issues such as a viable health insurance system to be decided? It took Lincoln practically his whole life to fully accept that the eradication of slavery also meant the full enfranchisement of African-Americans as citizens. Many of the same states that are now "red" refused to even consider such a proposition.
This book registers by date and deed the markers of change in the nation's opinion. And it chronicles the subtle and telling indications of Lincoln's own "growth" on the issue, right up until the day he died. I often wondered, as I read of the machinations of the Republicans what the conversations and journalism in the South would register. But then I realized it would be a waste to read the latter, as they would, at their best be sick apologetics, such as the National Review, or just sick like the Drudge Report, Limbaugh or Beck. But I even wondered if, except for the Radical Republicans, if there wasn't in their hatred of slavery a bit of the resentment, that some people (slave owners) were getting something (labor for free) that they weren't getting, that completely permeates Republican ranting today. The wish to colonize them, deport them, isolate them in indentured servitude was certainly as common among them as it was among the Democrats -- though certainly not as overtly racist.
It brings to mind also how hard it is to even express what change is about, in order to make it convincing. In his early addresses and debates Lincoln had to bury his anti-slavery bent in all manner of equivocations and compromises -- such as colonization. The Democrats however had racist invective and incendiary fear mongering on the tips of their tongues. It continued through the war years such that Foner characterized the 1864 campaign as the most racist on record. Hmmmm.
But this is a story of hope, of the triumph of miraculously good will and courage of a man and, ultimately of a people.
Can we rise to the occasion again? I can't help but feel that is the question that beats beneath Foner's text.

"A Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery" by: Eric Foner Book Review
When understanding the legacy of Lincoln, one must know the basics of the bequest of Abraham. President, tall, anti-slavery, Civil War, and last but not least the Emancipation Proclamation, are thoughts that instantly come to mind when I hear the name Abraham Lincoln. The great question still yields: How did Lincoln think or feel about the morality of American Slavery? This will remain forever unknown. With the Emancipation Proclamation, he became known as the Great Emancipator. Many events led up to the final abolishment of slavery, such as the North winning the Civil War in 1865. Does Lincoln truly deserve this legacy?
Lincoln's parents were against the Institution of slavery, although where the Lincoln's lived, in Kentucky, slavery was a common place. Until well into his life, he had only sporadic contact with Black people, slave or free (Foner, 2010). The early thoughts of becoming anti-slavery, at least in essence of the Emancipation Proclamation, rooted from his own family. Some of his relatives were slave owners-his uncle, but his parents exhibited an aversion to the Institution (Foner, 2010). Kentucky recognized slavery from the earliest days of white settlement. The state's first Constitution, written in 1792, prohibited the legislature from enacting laws for the emancipation without the full consent of the owners and full monetary compensation (Foner, 2010). In the period leading up to the Civil War, the future of slavery became the dominant political issue in the United States. Thomas and Nancy Lincoln knew slavery was a great evil. The church they attended soon divided into its own anti-slavery congregation, which his parents joined (Foner, 2010). His parents, although a part of the anti-slavery sentiment, were willing to leave their Kentucky home and relocate to a free state. Abraham's first notion of slavery was that it was something to flee from, a thing so dreadful that it was one's duty to go through pain and hardship to escape it.
In his new home in Indiana, he heard the debate on slavery go on. The State he had moved into was in a territory made free forever by the Ordinance of 1787, but there were still slaves and believers in slavery within its boundaries and it took many years to eradicate them. Close to his Indiana home, lay Illinois and here the same struggle went on through all his boyhood. He was too thoughtful not to reflect on what he heard and read of the differences of opinions of slavery. By the time the Statutes of Indiana fell into his hands -- some time before he was eighteen years old -- he had gathered a large amount of practical information about the question which he was able then to weigh in the light of the great principles of Constitution, the Ordinance of 1787, and the laws of Indiana, which he had begun to study with passionate earnestness. Many events led up to the final decisions of ending slavery Lincoln. All cannot be mentioned in detail, but the key events that convinced Lincoln further to end slavery, shall be discussed.
Well into Lincoln's adulthood, according to a friend of Lincoln, John Wesley Hill, stated that in 1837, they were going to a camp-meeting for a sermon by Dr. Peter Akers. His sermon was about the "Dominion of Jesus Christ". He stated that Christ would not come into America until slavery was wiped out and that the Institution would soon be destroyed by the Civil War. Dr. Akers stated, "As I read prophecy, American Slavery will come to an end in some near decade, I think in the sixties." Indeed, that is when the Emancipation Proclamation would soon come to pass and change American history forever. Slavery would undermine the foundation of democracy. Lincoln stated "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master." A resident of New Salem, Daniel Green Burner, recalled that he often heard Lincoln speak about slavery while they were together in New Salem and he was always opposed to it. This also was an attribute to Lincoln's soon to be "war to end to slavery". Some events that led up to Lincoln becoming the Great Emancipator were Lincoln becoming a Senator of the Illinois Legislature, his campaign for becoming a member of Congress, his Peoria speech, the Dred Scott Case, House division speech, a plethora of debates, the big election of 1860, Civil War and short after (during), the Emancipation Proclamation.
Lincoln's speech at Peoria called for "the separation of the races" through colonization. By this statement, it seems that Lincoln wanted all men to be created equal as said in the Declaration of Independence, but that this can happen with the Blacks enjoying it outside of the U.S. What does this state then? This falsifies the great legacy of Lincoln being the Emancipator before the Emancipation Proclamation was written and issued. Some say that Lincoln may have been a bit racist. I would conclude that Lincoln was an Emancipator on some levels, but not all. The election of 1860 drew the largest turnout of eligible voters-more than 80% in our history. This election threatened to split the country over the issue of slavery. The "House Divided" speech which Mr. Lincoln delivered, upon nomination of the senator seat held by Stephen Douglas, was more prophetic than reportorial. It recognized the hardening lines between northern and southern opinion and the unwillingness to compromise. It forced Douglas to do exactly what he did not want to do in Illinois: explain his own record during the past four years; explain the true meaning of the Kansas-Nebraska bill; discuss the Dred Scott decision; say whether or not he thought slavery was a good a thing that the country could afford to extend it instead of confining it where it would be in course of gradual extinction.
Within a month and a half, the election initiated a process of rebellion and disunion that resulted in the formation of a new country, the Confederate States of America, and quickly thereafter, in a bitter and bloody war. According to one historian, the War between the States was a war about maintaining state's rights. Each state had its own sovereignty. Most history books paint the Civil War as the North states versus the South states, but of course, it was more complex. After the North won the war in 1865, Congress accepted the south back into the fold, but with conditions. One condition was the passage of the 13th amendment, outlawing slavery in all states. The Emancipation Proclamation was basically a military strategy that succeeded. It encouraged slaves from the rebellious states, to flee to Union held areas and allowed Union forces to accept Blacks as recruits to fight for their own freedom. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves of the Border States (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern state (or part of a state) already under Union control. I believe that this statement demonstrates that Lincoln may or may not have had true morality for the Blacks, because other states were not free.
Mr. Lincoln's speech-making continued to have a great political effect during the post-1858 period - inside and outside of his home state of Illinois. The main plot was that Lincoln wanted to save the Union and went to great lengths to do so, no matter what. No one knows for sure what Abraham Lincoln thought or felt about the morality for American Slavery. "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union." By this statement he is saying that whatever measures it take to save the Union, he will do, even if it includes abolishing slavery. The famous quote stated in the Proclamation by our former President "I am Naturally Anti-Slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think, and feel", illustrates that even though slavery may not have been his primary focus, he still found a way to end it and to save the Union all at once.

Reference
Foner, E. (2010). The fiery trial: Abraham Lincoln and American slavery.

After raving about the movie Lincoln to my brother he told me to read "The Fiery Trial". While reading this book I realized Lincoln came a long way to get to the point of emancipation. "The Fiery Trial" also took me on journey from an utter dislike of Lincoln to admiration. When it was time for Lincoln to make a bold move, he seized the moment.

Like peeling layers of onion Foner here uncovers motives and meanings in the perpetual growth of Lincoln from youth to moral manhood. Likewise the book helps us reflect on our nations own growth in that regard.

Since this book won the Pulitzer Prize for history this year and also the
Bancroft Prize, I felt I had to read it. It is the 51st such Pulitzer winner I have read and the 33rd such Bancroft winner I have read. It is an excellent study of Lincoln's attitude to slavery, and shows his growth from the attitude common in his day to the role he attained as the Emancipator. I found the book eloquent and at time poignant, especially when echoing Lincoln's oratory on the subject while President. Linclon's Second Inaugural speech is surely one of the greatest speeches ever given. This book well deserves the prizes it has won.

Foner gets it fundamentally wrong -- and he knows better.

Basically, Foner panders to those who would hate, did hate, and do hate LIncoln. He tries to pass Lincoln off as not really caring about slavery, but using slavery as some kind of excuse.

More deceptive, Foner tries to honor slave owners and refuses to even mention SOuthern ultimatums to spread slavery for God and white survival. He completely glosses over, in fact he distorts, the Dred Scott decision's directive that blacks are "so inferior" they are not even human persons, but property. Never mind that the decision itself is emphatic -- it calls blacks inferior beings and declares that is their legal status, inferior beings NOT persons. As inferior beings, not persons, they are property, and new states must protect that property, even if, as in the case of Kansas, voters rejected slavery once by a stunning 98% vote.

Foner doesnt even mention that. In fact, Foner claims Dred Scott was a "narrow ruling" about citizenship. Oh really? Bother to even read it? In fact, Jefferson Davis himself made the case at length, loudly and proudly, that Dred Scott finding that blacks were inferior beings, and specifically literally officially NOT PERSONS, but property, was the justification for the Civil WAR!! Go read Davis book! Davis narrative is that the South would have given up slavery, BUT FOR the Dred Scott decision directive that blacks were so inferior they were not persons. That's what Davis wrote! In his own book. ANd Davis was right, that is what the Taney Court said. The point is, SOuthern leaders specifically explained that ruling changed everything.

SO along comes Foner, claims it was a narrow ruling!! It was about citizenship!! Lincoln said the same thing Jefferson Davis said -- and Foner knows it. Over and over Lincoln said this -- that Dred Scott was the South's deceptive way to force slavery against the will of the people, into places that didn't want it. Foner knows that, or should. Lincoln said it, one way or another, in every debate against Douglas. Just read the debates. And Davis bragged about it! SO Davis brags that Dred Scott mandated blacks as property and therefore no one could prevent the spread of slavery, states rights and popular sovereignty be damned. Lincoln is calling Davis and the SOuth on that. Quite easily the biggest and more intense issue for LIncoln and Davis, and Foner does not even mention it!! Foner tries to pass Lincoln off as a moderate.

Lincoln did have to speak moderately at times, of course. Otherwise he would have joined Lovejoy and have been killed earlier. But SOuthern leaders and Stephen DOuglas charged over and over that Lincoln was a dangerous radical a "*igger lover" and "**igger worshiper" Foner somehow misses that too. Frederick Douglass had it right, he knew Lincoln's enemies, North and South. He did not pander to them, like Foner is doing. Frederick Douglass called LIncoln "radical swift, zealous and determined". Douglass knew what Lincoln was up against -- he did not pretend otherwise, like Foner.

SInce Douglass was there, and knew all about the Dred Scott decision that blacks were inferior beings, so inferior they were not persons, but Foner likes to pretend Dred Scott was a "narrow ruling" about Congress right to bestoy citizenship, Foner should get the Orwellian prize for sucking up to those who trash Lincoln. Given what actually happened, and what the Southern slave masters were actually doing, Lincoln was not short of amazing. Foner wants to pee on Lincoln a bit here and there, which would not be so bad if he knew what he was talking about or could be candid about the actual dynamic involved.

In short, Foner panders and does not convey the basic issue of the time -- the violent demands to spread slavery for GOD and white survival, and the use of Dred Scott decision of blacks not being persons, as the "logic" behind it. Foner does not mention either thing. But those were what Lincoln had to deal with. And if you want to know what LIncoln dealt with, you wont get it from Foner. You will have to read Southern books, documents, newspapers, and the Dred Scott decision, and the Lincoln Douglas debates. Frederick Douglass 1876 Oration about Lincoln is brilliant summation. Douglass was not about to suck up to those who trashed LIncoln -- Foner was eager to do so. Therein lies the difference. Plus, Douglass was no coward, and a genius.

This rigorous academic work explores the political, religious, and public attitudes about race and slavery and how it affected Lincoln’s ideas during his entire adult life. During his life, the vast majority of white Americans, both in the north and in the south, were highly racist and highly ignorant of the lives of Black people, whether they were slaves or freedmen. While Lincoln abhorred slavery, he did believe that states had the rights to allow slavery and for much of his life, he believed that eventually slavery should end and that Blacks should be shipped out of the country and sent to colonies in Central America or Africa. As Lincoln feared, once slavery was ended, the southern whites soon took governance over their territory and they set about exploiting the cheap labor of freedmen as much as the laws would allow. At the same time, the North discriminated over the Black populace as much as their customs would allow.

This book is fine if you enjoy reading text books. I have been reading it for months and am still only half way through. So much boring detail. If desperate, I will start reading it again. I am a lover of history and have read many books about Lincoln but just can't get through this one.

Historians continue to falsify Lincoln's actions by opinionating as to why he did what he did and said what he said. It's ridiculous. Facts must present themselves and the facts are included here in short detail. Lincoln was quite the racist himself....for instance from Lincoln's own writing to Horace Greeley "...My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views." As far as the Civil War being over slavery, how could this be so when Abraham Lincoln himself stated in his Inaugural Address, "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." (On the Capitol steps, 1861) Also, just another side note; the emancipation proclamation was only for the Confederacy and those against Lincoln, for those in the Union and in the respectable states of the Union that allowed slavery, then those in the Union did not have to free their slaves. Yes, the truth as to the Civil War had very much to do with Lincoln adhering to the protectionist tariff's (tax on imports and exports), creating higher one's twice more, consolidating power into the Federal Government while removing states rights, and as he himself stated "save the Union." Of course not the Constitutional Union, but something far different. If you read a little more you'd also find that he wanted to colonize the African Americans (Lincoln's words "It is my purpose to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon this continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the government existing there." and speaking of colonizing them here in America he stated "If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes in the South, among their former owners, from whom we have taken their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be done. The Negroes must be gotten rid of.") to another country to rid America of them, the reason he was against slavery in the new territories was because as he stated "The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [new] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." But hey, the truth is too hard to take for most people that have been completely brainwashed so as they turn from the truth even though it's right in front of them. If you or anyone else would like to be angry, get pissed off at the fact that our freedom's and liberty's have been drained and the Constitution destroyed because of the ignorance and complacency of the mass. If you want to pick up a great read and then implement it in your own life I recommend the "5000 year leap" by Skousen

In my humble opinion, Eric Foner is incapable of writing an unbiased book on Lincoln or the WBTS. He joins many others who praise Lincoln as the great emancipator and savior of the Union; neither of which are true. Lincoln did not free the first slave, the Thirteenth Amendment gets that credit. Neither did Lincoln preserve the Union. Instead Lincoln destroyed the Union of free and voluntarily joined states. In its place rest a Union of states bound by force of arms, murder and pillage.

Foner does make a stab at telling the truth about the real Lincoln, but falls way short of the complete truth. Foner comes on the scene after other more capable authors have covered the subject accurately and thoroughly.

For a better understanding of the real Lincoln, I recommend four (4) books, "The Real Lincoln" (2002) and "Lincoln Unmasked," (2006) by Thomas DiLorenzo and the third by John Avery Emison entitled, "Lincoln Uber Alles" (2009.) And the fourth "Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War" Walter Kennedy & Al Benson. And to round off the truth about Lincoln, DiLorenzo explains the cause and effects of Abraham Lincoln's policies in "Hamilton's Curse." (2008)

The people deserve to know the whole truth about Lincoln from all sources. Foner's book, "The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery," is definitely NOT that source or book.

"Resolved: That this government was adopted the people of the several states of this union as common agent to carry into effect the which they had delegated by the constitution in fulfillment of this high and sacred trust this government is bound so to exercise its powers as not to interfere with the reserved rights of states over their own domestic institutions and is the duty of this government to refrain from attempt however remote to operate on the freedom of speech and the press as secured to the freedom of each state by the constitution and laws thereof That the United States are bound to secure to state a republican form of government and to protect each of them against invasion or domestic violence and for no other purpose can congress interfere with the internal police of a state." NILES NATIONAL REGISTER JAN 1838 MR FLETCHER'S ADDRESS

Abraham Lincoln betrayed the aforementioned trust not to interfere with the reserved rights of states over their own domestic institutions, and invaded a Sovereign state, by waging war against women and children. Lincoln is a murderer of women and children and for that we give him a national holiday.

A huge problem with Foner's book is what he doesn't say. Foner pays lip service to Lincoln's proposed thirteenth amendment (Corwin amendment) on two (2) pages (p.156, 158) of his book while devoting fourteen (14) pages to the thirteenth amendment that abolished slavery. Foner conveniently leaves out too much that proves the war was NOT fought over slavery.

Abraham Lincoln proposed a thirteenth amendment in March of 1861. It is the only proposed constitutional amendment that was signed by a sitting President. It bears Abraham Lincoln's signature. Here is Abraham Lincoln's proposed thirteenth amendment: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person's held to labor or service by laws of said State."

Lincoln's proposed thirteenth amendment said Congress shall not have the power to interfere with any institutions within any state including those held to labor or service by the laws of that State. In other words, what Abraham Lincoln was saying to the South, if you will accept this proposed thirteenth amendment, you may forever keep slaves. Beauregard did not fire on Fort Sumter until April 9. Lincoln's proposed thirteenth amendment was in March of 1861!

If the War had been about slavery and if the South wanted just to keep slaves and that was it, why fire a gun? Why fire a shot? Just simply accept his proposed thirteenth amendment and it would all be over. A resolution was passed unanimously by Congress on July 23, 1861. You may read it for yourself in the Congressional Record. Here is what this resolution says: "The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union." Congress said the War is not about slavery! I will even give you a thirteenth amendment that will allow you to make slavery permanent.

Many in the "Lincoln Cult," qualify their praise for this book by saying the book won the Pulitzer Prize. The Lincoln Cult screams fowl when the truth of the Lincoln Cult and the Pulitzer Prize is uncovered. The fact that the book won the Pulitzer Prize discredits the book further. Hiding behind the Pulitzer Prize tells something of the "Lincoln Cult's" character and defines them as extremely biased. One has to look no further than the comments to this review to see the extreme bias in favor of the Yankee version of history. Joseph Pulitzer, the founder/inventor of the Pulitzer Prize, was a Union soldier. Today, no true southerner sits on the Pulitzer Selection Board. All are extremely biased in favor of the Union version of the war. The Pulitzer Prize organization has absolutely zero credibility in establishing favored status for history books.

At the age of seventeen Pulitzer decided to become a soldier and tried in turn to enlist in the Austrian Army, Napoleon's Foreign Legion for duty in Mexico, and the British Army for service in India. He was rebuffed because of weak eyesight and frail health. However, in Hamburg, Germany, he encountered a bounty recruiter for the U.S. Union Army and contracted to enlist as a substitute for a draftee, a procedure permitted under the WBTS draft system.

At Boston he jumped ship and, swam to shore, determined to keep the enlistment bounty for himself rather than leave it to the agent. This act makes Joseph Pulitzer a thief, a liar and untrustworthy. Joseph Pulitzer collected the bounty by enlisting for a year in the Lincoln Cavalry, which suited him since there were many Germans in the unit.

Joseph Pulitzer was a thief, liar, and an untrustworthy Union mercenary paid to kill Southern women and children. There is no reason to love unquestioningly, uncritically, and venerate Joseph Pulitzer and his ilk as an idol and authority on history or any other subject. Joseph Pulitzer was nothing but a murdering, thieving, lying, untrustworthy, questionable Union mercenary with too much money and nothing to do with it except pat himself and other Lincoln Cult members on the back.

Racist, both black and white, often use the Western expansion to prove their bias against the southern states. The following is an excerpt from "THE BLACK WEST" BY WILLIAM LAUREN KATZ. Here he discusses the way white Yankee settlers in the early west who were firmly against spreading slavery to the western territories actually felt about black people. You were probably taught that during the pre-Civil War period, northern and southern whites battled each other in Kansas (so-called "bleeding Kansas") and Nebraska over the slavery issue. Read this to understand better why they wanted it that way. This may give you a better understanding of some white and black Yankee attitudes you encounter from lilly-white and black suburban areas today. Now my sons and daughters of Africa, you should never lose focus on reality. Know well your friends and your enemies.

To expect so fundamental an American ideology to remain behind when families collected their belongings and headed west, is to expect too much. The racial antipathies and myths of those moving toward the frontier was further inflamed by their fear of Indians, whom they also classified as "primitive" before they seized their land and burned their villages. Whether whites silently or loudly proclaimed their racism was a personal matter. But that they not only promoted it north, south, east and west, but cloaked it with the majesty of law, has been a historical development of the highest consequence for the nation. At the very moment in history when slavery was becoming localized in the South, racism was becoming national in scope.

The frontier experience furnishes ample proof of the nationalization of racial hostility. The intrepid pioneers who crossed the western plains carried the virus of racism with them, as much a part of their psyche as their heralded courage and their fears. Once settled in frontier communities, these hearty souls erected the racial barriers their forefathers had created back east. As these pioneers cleared the land, built homes, schools, churches and planted crops, they transplanted their bigotry into western frontier life. Even after the death of slavery, their belief in black inferiority would remain. The pioneers and their children would hold tenaciously to the creed of their ancestors. Documentation abounds with the Yankee hatred of blacks.

The black migrant to the frontier soon found he had no hiding place from traditional American attitudes. Even the West's vaunted antislavery position was largely based not on moral repulsion to an evil institution, or even calculated white self-interest -- rather it stemmed from hatred and fear of blacks as neighbors. Repeatedly and by overwhelming majorities, former Yankee white settlers, who moved further and further west, voted to keep black people from entering their land, voting in their elections, testifying in their courts, serving in their militia, or attending their schools and churches. If any substantial number felt regret for the black prospector who could not protect his claim, the black woman who was raped, the black merchant who was robbed in broad daylight before witnesses, or the black children kept from entering the schoolhouse door, they made no tangible show of their feelings and left no record of their distress. The Yankee pioneers who were moving west in unprecedented numbers wanted, along with their own land and liberty, what Lincoln and the Republican party had promised them -- a white West, unsullied by black people, slave or free.

Update: Other books exposing Abraham Lincoln's hyprocrisy towards slavery are: 1) the well documented book by Lerone Bennett Jr., "Forced Into Glory, Abraham Lincoln's White Dream." (2000); "Colonization After Emancipation, Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement," by Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page. (2011); and "North of Slavery, The Negro in the Free States." (1961)