Three Lincoln Masterpieces (review)

Book Reviews435 The concomitants of die legends of Soudiern patriotism are aU present The Union always has enormously superior forces; die relative populations are set down as twenty-two million against five million whites and three million blacks, which pushes Kentucky and Missouri completely into the Union camp. The pen portraits of generals are always those of Southern generals, and for some of diem diere is extravagant admiration — especiaUy N. B. Forrest to whom is given die major part of die credit for breaking up Grant's first advance into Mississippi, which most of us thought belonged to Van Dorn. It is also a case of once over Ughtìy. There is practicaUy nothing analytical in the book. The work of the Union artiUery, one of die decisive features of die war according to General Dick EweU, is mentioned only in a single sentence in connection widi Gettysburg. The gunboats diat played so prominent a part on the western rivers escape with a couple of lines. These are heavy deductions. What remains? A consistent, clear, and brief account of die war which cleaves to die main line of military operations without concerning itself with odier issues; a series of excellent maps, both strategic and tactical; a concise account which should lead its readers to investigate more specialized and less one-sided works. Fletcher Pratt New York, New York Three Lincoln Masterpieces. By Benjamin Barondess. (Charleston, West Virginia: Education Foundation of West Virginia, Inc. 1954. Pp. ix, 156. $3.00.) This beautifully printed little book is valuable chiefly for bringing together the texts and background of die "Cooper Union," the "Gettysburg," and the "Second Inaugural" addresses, but its usefulness for die historian or rhetorician ends there. Although the jacket refers to "the years-long search for the little known details omitted or overlooked by historians and biographers ," the footnotes meticulously refer to the familiar sources. The important texts of the three speeches are established only as far back as The Collected Works. Nor is diere a reaUy significant and original contribution in what die jacket calls "a vivid portrayal of the thought behind diese wodd famous orations." This consists of the simple formula of restating the well-known facts and of requoting the pertinent quotations concerning (1) the preparations for the speech and (3) its reception. The second section, between diese two, is caUed "die speech itself," and here we would expect the most. And yet, widi regard to die Cooper Union address, under "Analytical Summary of die Speech," we read diat die speech "naturaUy falls into diree general parts." But rhetoric is not "natural;" it is, in the best sense of the word, "artificial." And diere are not as die text makes clear, three parts; diere are (1) the definition of die issue in ironical historical terms, and (2) the caU to both sections of the nation to unite on that single issue. In an analysis, especially where we are given the text as an appendix, there is no need to make long quotations. Anyone can see "what" is in die speech; we want to know "why" it is there at that particular rhetorical juncture. Neither does paraphrase, which merely substitutes Barondess' words for Lincoln's, satisfy us. "At diis point** 436civil war history Barondess writes, "Lincoln voiced his own political phüosophy: A poUcy of pinning down slavery to the States where it already existed . . ." But why "at this point"? And how far was this merely his own philosophy? Such an assertion robs the speech of its rhetorical effectiveness: this was the philosophy of the founding fathers many years ago, and of aU "right-thinking men" today whether they Uve in the north or the south. The whole Cooper Union speech hammers on this point, and hence the "first part" or "history" must be joined by the analyst to everything else. Thus the beautiful irony of opening with a quotation from his adversary Douglas, and the artful reiteration of die word "understanding." Douglas had said diat die writers of die Constitution "understood " the issue better than we do today. Lincoln does not deny this: he proves that they understood it in the same way that "we" understand it, but...