I was incredibly excited to get my hands on this book on Constitution Day 2025. Akhil Amar is my favorite constitutional scholar; I listen to every episode of his podcast that Dr. Andy Lipka hosts. There were things I liked about this book, but on the whole it left me disappointed for one petty stylistic reason and one earnest historical reason, as well as some other reasons I’m still working through.
1. The first-naming of major historical figures is incredibly grating. I understand intellectually why Professor Amar made this choice, but it casts a peculiarly juvenile gloss over such a rich text.
2. The book’s treatment of Lincoln is quite odd. At times, it seems as though Amar admires Lincoln because Lincoln was an originalist. Setting aside that this label originated about a century after Lincoln was killed, Lincoln’s excellence — which I understand and respect — comes from his intellect, political and oratorical skills, grit, and above all, moral insight that sharpened as his challenges (and the nation’s) deepened. Lincoln does not need to fit Amar’s preferred intellectual paradigm in order to be great. Even if he did, it is unclear how this would enhance Amar’s argument about the U.S.’s ongoing “constitutional conversation;” certainly non-originalists participate in and shape this conversation also?
This is nowhere more evident than Amar’s treatment of Lincoln’s magisterial Second Inaugural Address. Ronald C. White, a leading Lincoln biographer, refers to this as “Lincoln’s greatest speech;” it is one of two speeches, alongside the Gettysburg Address, to flank Lincoln’s statue at the memorial in Washington DC. But it merits about one paragraph in Born Equal’s 600+ pages, presumably because it is a forward-looking document, whereas all of the other Lincolnian texts cited by Amar include overt historical references that demonstrate Lincoln’s purported originalism. I see the point of including Lincoln’s historically-oriented writings about constitutional power and the primacy of the Declaration of Independence in Lincoln’s thinking. But you can keep those facets of studying Lincoln while also analyzing Lincoln’s vision for what would come next after the conclusion of the Civil War, and do it all without shoehorning Lincoln into a 20th century-contrived constitutional bucket of ideas (originalism). Books such as Eric Foner’s The Fiery Trial pull this off very well. Amar’s effort here is less successful.
To be clear, I admire Lincoln as a president, a man, and a constitutional thinker. Having read Born Equal, it’s clear that Amar does too; just for different reasons than I do. And unfortunately, his reasons do not make sense to me.
In addition, Born Equal suffers from a lack of inclusiveness that undermines some of its arguments’ potency. In Born Equal, the “great man” theory of history is expanded to also include (some) “great women,” but I found the individualistic nature of Amar’s arguments a smidgen weak. Obviously it would be impossible to include *every* noteworthy constitutional thinker from this era, but the near total absence of Native American thinkers was hard to stomach. Zero mentions of Wovoka, to name one Native leader who pushed boundaries and reshaped intertribal relations in the late-1800s seemed like an obvious inclusion to me, but evidently not to Professor Amar.
Throughout his scholarship, Akhil Amar has taught me lessons about the Constitution and about U.S. history that I am grateful for. Unfortunately, not many of those lessons come from Born Equal.