Abraham Lincoln Contemporary: An American Legacy (review)

BOOK REVIEWS25I Mark E. Neely, Jr., attacks the interpretation, made most explicitly by Eric McKitrick, "that attributes northern victory in the war in part to the superiority of their two-party political system" (87). In condemning the failure of that system, Neely fails to note that the death of Stephen A. Douglas in June 1 86 1 deprived the Democrats of the kind of leadership that might have made the opposition party far more responsible than it became under leaders like Horatio Seymour and Clement L. Vallandigham. Merrill D. Peterson's "The International Lincoln," derived largely from his estimable 1994 book Lincoln in American Memory, explores Lincoln's fame abroad in the first quarter of the twentieth century, focusing most closely on Great Britain. He concludes that "the identification of American ideals with the Allied cause in World War I . . . consummated Lincoln's international fame" ( 1 59). Harold Holzer's sneering analysis of "the surprisingly hollow legacy of Lincoln's lackluster impromptu oratory" (115) will astonish readers familiar with Lincoln's farewell address to Springfield. Holzer's essay extends an argument he made in his recent wrongheaded edition of the Lincoln-Douglas debates , which rests on demonstrably false premises. Frank J. Williams's "Lincoln—Our Ever-Present Contemporary" superficially examines the way that the Lincoln image has been used and abused by politicians and in popular culture. Unaccountably there is no index. Michael Burlingame Connecticut College Abraham Lincoln Contemporary: An American Legacy. Edited by Frank J. Williams and William D. Pederson. (Campbell, Calif.: Savas Woodbury Publishers , 1995. Pp. 228. $24.95.) This volume of eleven essays "deals with Lincoln's continuing impact on America's institutional (governmental, spiritual, and educational) life" (v). The wide-ranging effect ofthe Lincoln legacy is immediately obvious by noting the diversity of disciplines the various authors represent: historians and political scientists, of course, but also an attorney, a social worker, an economist, a psychoanalyst, and an educator. After reading this book, one comes away with a renewed appreciation as to how greatly the sixteenth president has affected succeeding generations. Part I contains essays about the influence of Lincoln on the presidencies of Rutherford B. Hayes, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Gerald Ford. Edward and Frederick Schapsmeier note the words of Ford—uttered late in his presidency when he was enduring a barrage of criticism—when he spoke of feeling the presence of Lincoln. "It is a comforting presence, greatly reminding his successors that no matter how worrisome, none of their problems can be worse than he faced, none oftheir critics more cruel, none oftheir decisions more difficult" 252CIVIL WAR HISTORY (63). The Schapsmeiers conclude their essay by affirming that "the influence of Lincoln . . . helped make Gerald Ford the ideal president during a period when the nation truly needed a time to heal" (64). Part II deals with presidential relations with Congress and the cabinet. In an insightful article, Arthur Williams and Amanda Noble state that Lincoln "did practice cabinet 'alchemy' by transforming a cabinet of contentious rivals into one of diamonds in their setting" (92). The authors state that modern business management often follows a similar practice but that contemporary presidents surround themselves with staffs that tell them what they want to hear, thus insulating them from cabinets that would expose them to more diverse views. Part III, "Constitutional Impact," argues the often-debated question as to whether President Lincoln had the right to take extraconstitutional powers in a time of great crisis. William Bader emphasizes that "in the long term, Lincoln's coordinate review legacy could promise total disaster for constitutional democracy as we know it." Though "Lincoln proved to be one of the most brilliant leaders in United States history . . . our destiny as a nation must not be dependent on the benevolence of one man or woman, but on the rule of law" (132). Mark Rozell takes the opposite view, declaring that Lincoln had to assume and practice extraordinary powers in order to save the nation, which was his primary responsibility. Rozell declares that "history has treated more favorably presidents who were willing to act decisively during perilous times rather than cautiously according to a narrow, legalistic interpretation of what the Constitution would allow...