What do you think?
Rate this book
A Just and Generous Nation: Abraham Lincoln and the Fight for American Opportunity
In A Just and Generous Nation, the eminent historian Harold Holzer and the noted economist Norton Garfinkle present a groundbreaking new account of the beliefs that inspired our sixteenth president to go to war when the Southern states seceded from the Union. Rather than a commitment to eradicating slavery or a defense of the Union, they argue, Lincoln's guiding principle was the defense of equal economic opportunity. Lincoln firmly believed that the government's primary role was to ensure that all Americans had the opportunity to better their station in life. As president, he worked tirelessly to enshrine this ideal within the federal government. He funded railroads and canals, supported education, and, most importantly, issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which opened the door for former slaves to join white Americans in striving for self-improvement. In our own age of unprecedented inequality, A Just and Generous Nation reestablishes Lincoln's legacy as the protector not just of personal freedom but of the American dream itself.
322 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 3, 2015
16 people are currently reading
164 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
November 24, 2015
As would be expected from a book authored by Lincoln historian Harold Holzer, this one is well worth the read. Somewhat different from most Holzer books, A Just and Generous Nation is a collaboration with economist Norton Garfinkle. The focus is on Lincoln's economic vision.
The book is split into two parts, with several chapters in each. Part One, written by Holzer, provides substantial history and background on Lincoln's essential philosophy - the pursuit of economic opportunity for all and the ability to "improve one's condition." Holzer reviews Lincoln's upbringing as a laborer, his belief that slavery was wrong in part because it kept both white and black Americans in "a fixed condition for life," and his confidence that positive government had a role in "elevating the condition of men." This background is essential to understanding his economic pursuits.
Part Two, written by Garfinkle, focuses on the economics itself through history, beginning with the post-assassination reconstruction struggle to implement Lincoln's vision of a fair chance for all. Garfinkle takes us through the early years of falling back after reconstruction through advocacy both for, and then against, Lincoln's belief in an economy built on a strong middle class. While Presidents of both parties like to claim Lincoln as their own, some have chosen to follow his principles while others have chosen to askew those principles and usher in the Gospel of Wealth that characterized the "Gilded Age" and its current Republican-dominated philosophy of economic for the wealthy.
The two parts of the book made a surprisingly cohesive tandem. These experts in their fields bring together Lincoln's philosophy and its impact on modern America. Along the way we gain insights into both the life of Lincoln and the life that led to our current economic condition. The essence is that Lincoln's views of internal improvements and positive government are economically sound while the 30 year holding pattern of the Gospel of Wealth has been destructive to America and Americans. It's an interesting discussion, and worth reading.
The book is split into two parts, with several chapters in each. Part One, written by Holzer, provides substantial history and background on Lincoln's essential philosophy - the pursuit of economic opportunity for all and the ability to "improve one's condition." Holzer reviews Lincoln's upbringing as a laborer, his belief that slavery was wrong in part because it kept both white and black Americans in "a fixed condition for life," and his confidence that positive government had a role in "elevating the condition of men." This background is essential to understanding his economic pursuits.
Part Two, written by Garfinkle, focuses on the economics itself through history, beginning with the post-assassination reconstruction struggle to implement Lincoln's vision of a fair chance for all. Garfinkle takes us through the early years of falling back after reconstruction through advocacy both for, and then against, Lincoln's belief in an economy built on a strong middle class. While Presidents of both parties like to claim Lincoln as their own, some have chosen to follow his principles while others have chosen to askew those principles and usher in the Gospel of Wealth that characterized the "Gilded Age" and its current Republican-dominated philosophy of economic for the wealthy.
The two parts of the book made a surprisingly cohesive tandem. These experts in their fields bring together Lincoln's philosophy and its impact on modern America. Along the way we gain insights into both the life of Lincoln and the life that led to our current economic condition. The essence is that Lincoln's views of internal improvements and positive government are economically sound while the 30 year holding pattern of the Gospel of Wealth has been destructive to America and Americans. It's an interesting discussion, and worth reading.
April 24, 2024
Growing up in Illinois, you were never far away from Abraham Lincoln. We learned about him in school. The hardships; ‘learning by firelight’; ‘the Railsplitter’; the trials; the Lincoln-Douglas debates; the Civil War and the Assassination. We took field trips which included an overnight (exciting for a grade schooler!) trip to Springfield. The mausoleum was deeply moving. Even today, our license plates on vehicles state: “The Land of Lincoln”.
I’ve read perhaps over a dozen different books on Lincoln over the years from the excellent (“A. Lincoln” by Ronald White or “Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin) to the completely vile (“The Real Lincoln” by Thomas DiLorenzo).
So do we need another Lincoln book? In light of the relatively recent development of increasingly strident anti Lincoln authors, I am happy to report ‘A Just and Generous Nation’ is a thoughtful and well documented rebuttal to those anti Lincoln authors and a welcome correction to those books. Virtually all of books written of Lincoln praise his abilities as a smart and savvy politician, and this one is no different. Here is Holzer illustrating that point regarding his refusal to allow additional expansion to slavery in a letter written to a Republican congressman after the election but before inauguration: “Lincoln reiterated on December 13: ‘Prevent, as far as possible, any of our friends from demoralizing themselves, and our cause, by entertaining propositions for compromise of any sort, on ‘slavery extension’. There is no possible compromise upon it, but which puts us under again, and leaves all our work to do over again.’” (p.62) Unlike Seward and many others, Lincoln knew that the time for compromise was finally over.
“Lincoln’s political and economic philosophy guided his response to the Southern secession movement. He refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of secession because to do so would accept the principle that the unique American middle class nation, ‘conceived in liberty’ and ‘dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,’ could be destroyed by a willful aristocratic minority of slaveholders.” (p.71)
This I think, is the crux of the entire book. Namely, Lincoln’s focus on securing the rights for all Americans to seek life, liberty & happiness through ECONOMIC EQUITY. In other words, slavery and economic equity are inherently incompatible.
In his 1st report to Congress, Lincoln clearly states:
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves a much higher consideration.”
The authors pointedly note that after Lincoln’s death, “Enormous amounts of money were being made, but it was increasingly concentrated in very few hands. By 1890 the richest 1 percent of the population was absorbing half of the entire national income and controlled more than half the nation’s wealth. This was not at all what Lincoln had envisioned when he described a society in which labor was superior to capital.” (p.171) Describing the ‘Gilded Age’, they write: “Far from maintaining a scrupulous laissez-faire or ‘hands-off’ attitude, the government had its thumb on the scale on behalf of its richest citizens. Railroad magnates received federal lands at minimal cost. State government troops were provided by local and state governments to prevent strikes and reduce labor unrest.” (p.177)
Holzer & Garfinkle are able to provide a wealth of documentation and evidence demonstrating their points. In fulfilling Lincoln’s vision of a middle class society, Franklin Roosevelt described his pro labor and pro union policies as motivated by the necessity of increasing ‘the purchasing power of the nation as a whole.’ “Roosevelt’s commitment to the well-being of all citizens was manifested by his New Deal government stimulus programs to provide jobs for all able-bodied American workers.” (p.202)
But I think the most salient points belong toward the tail end of the book which chronicles the rise of Ronald Reagan’s, ‘government is the problem’ approach. The authors are able to show that since 1980, the share of America’s wealth has steadily been swallowed up by the top 1%. This is demonstrably contrary to Lincoln’s vision. Rather than substitute my personal opinion, I will conclude by merely quoting 3 other respected authors on the back cover:
“Lincoln’s legacy includes not only the preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery, but also the use of government to promote economic opportunity and upward mobility for all Americans. As the authors of this eye-opening study convincingly demonstrate, the modern Republican party has repudiated this legacy by embracing policies that have promoted increasing inequality and a society that closes off opportunity.” James M. McPherson.
“Harold Holzer and Norton Garfinkle’s concise study brilliantly shows all the ways the modern Republican party has trashed the legacy of Abraham Lincoln-not only on racial justice but on the economics of the American dream. Here is exacting and responsible history put to good purpose, dispelling the amnesia and the myths that plague our public life.” Sean Wilentz
Harold Holzer and Norton Garfinkle provide an important public service by reminding us that Lincoln’s hatred of slavery and devotion to the Union rested on a bedrock belief that free society and activist democratic government could offer free laborers the opportunity to rise up the social ladder, and by showing that in our time of rising inequality, that promise is in danger of being betrayed.” Eric Foner
I’ve read perhaps over a dozen different books on Lincoln over the years from the excellent (“A. Lincoln” by Ronald White or “Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin) to the completely vile (“The Real Lincoln” by Thomas DiLorenzo).
So do we need another Lincoln book? In light of the relatively recent development of increasingly strident anti Lincoln authors, I am happy to report ‘A Just and Generous Nation’ is a thoughtful and well documented rebuttal to those anti Lincoln authors and a welcome correction to those books. Virtually all of books written of Lincoln praise his abilities as a smart and savvy politician, and this one is no different. Here is Holzer illustrating that point regarding his refusal to allow additional expansion to slavery in a letter written to a Republican congressman after the election but before inauguration: “Lincoln reiterated on December 13: ‘Prevent, as far as possible, any of our friends from demoralizing themselves, and our cause, by entertaining propositions for compromise of any sort, on ‘slavery extension’. There is no possible compromise upon it, but which puts us under again, and leaves all our work to do over again.’” (p.62) Unlike Seward and many others, Lincoln knew that the time for compromise was finally over.
“Lincoln’s political and economic philosophy guided his response to the Southern secession movement. He refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of secession because to do so would accept the principle that the unique American middle class nation, ‘conceived in liberty’ and ‘dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,’ could be destroyed by a willful aristocratic minority of slaveholders.” (p.71)
This I think, is the crux of the entire book. Namely, Lincoln’s focus on securing the rights for all Americans to seek life, liberty & happiness through ECONOMIC EQUITY. In other words, slavery and economic equity are inherently incompatible.
In his 1st report to Congress, Lincoln clearly states:
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves a much higher consideration.”
The authors pointedly note that after Lincoln’s death, “Enormous amounts of money were being made, but it was increasingly concentrated in very few hands. By 1890 the richest 1 percent of the population was absorbing half of the entire national income and controlled more than half the nation’s wealth. This was not at all what Lincoln had envisioned when he described a society in which labor was superior to capital.” (p.171) Describing the ‘Gilded Age’, they write: “Far from maintaining a scrupulous laissez-faire or ‘hands-off’ attitude, the government had its thumb on the scale on behalf of its richest citizens. Railroad magnates received federal lands at minimal cost. State government troops were provided by local and state governments to prevent strikes and reduce labor unrest.” (p.177)
Holzer & Garfinkle are able to provide a wealth of documentation and evidence demonstrating their points. In fulfilling Lincoln’s vision of a middle class society, Franklin Roosevelt described his pro labor and pro union policies as motivated by the necessity of increasing ‘the purchasing power of the nation as a whole.’ “Roosevelt’s commitment to the well-being of all citizens was manifested by his New Deal government stimulus programs to provide jobs for all able-bodied American workers.” (p.202)
But I think the most salient points belong toward the tail end of the book which chronicles the rise of Ronald Reagan’s, ‘government is the problem’ approach. The authors are able to show that since 1980, the share of America’s wealth has steadily been swallowed up by the top 1%. This is demonstrably contrary to Lincoln’s vision. Rather than substitute my personal opinion, I will conclude by merely quoting 3 other respected authors on the back cover:
“Lincoln’s legacy includes not only the preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery, but also the use of government to promote economic opportunity and upward mobility for all Americans. As the authors of this eye-opening study convincingly demonstrate, the modern Republican party has repudiated this legacy by embracing policies that have promoted increasing inequality and a society that closes off opportunity.” James M. McPherson.
“Harold Holzer and Norton Garfinkle’s concise study brilliantly shows all the ways the modern Republican party has trashed the legacy of Abraham Lincoln-not only on racial justice but on the economics of the American dream. Here is exacting and responsible history put to good purpose, dispelling the amnesia and the myths that plague our public life.” Sean Wilentz
Harold Holzer and Norton Garfinkle provide an important public service by reminding us that Lincoln’s hatred of slavery and devotion to the Union rested on a bedrock belief that free society and activist democratic government could offer free laborers the opportunity to rise up the social ladder, and by showing that in our time of rising inequality, that promise is in danger of being betrayed.” Eric Foner
July 5, 2017
This book is a reminder to those who have read a great many books about Abraham Lincoln [1] that the speeches and writings of Abraham Lincoln serve a role not dissimilar to that of scripture. Just as those of us who are interested in questions of doctrine and religious legitimacy pour over the texts of the Bible as well as extrabiblical writings of interest in order to defend our own positions in light of what has been written and is accepted by our audience as an authority, so too writers use the writings and speeches of Abraham Lincoln, which are nearly uniformly agreed to as being legitimate guides to political belief and practice, as a way of supporting the legitimacy of their own views. Books like this are not written in order to better understand Lincoln's political thought and practice, but to use it as a buttress for the thoughts and beliefs of the author. In this case, the author seeks to present Abraham Lincoln, through a biased and skewed reading, as someone who would have welcomed the rise and the increased power of the welfare state.
As is generally the case, the authors mix truth with error in order to come up with their mistaken conclusion. In terms of its contents, the book amounts to a historical analysis that is as close to reality as that by Marxist historians like Howard Zinn or by hostile revisionists like DiLorenzo. Seemingly inevitably, strident and extreme political approaches and a mistaken factual and historical foundation go hand in hand. This book, a bit over 250 pages, is divided into two sections. The first section looks at the life of Abraham Lincoln as providing an argument for the need for equality of opportunity. The author forms an inventive and not inaccurate case for Lincoln's hostility to slavery arising from its denial of the possibility for advancement to the level of one's God-given gifts and abilities, an economic form of injustice. The second part of the book looks at the varied arguments and achievement of this equality of opportunity in the aftermath of Lincoln's assassination, and it is here that the book is at its most troubling, tying Lincoln's essentially middle-class desire for education and increased economic and social prestige and political office to a socialist call for increased taxation for a bloated welfare state. That the author can look at the taxation rates of the contemporary United States and view our government expenditures as "starved" because they only make up 30% of our GDP shows a willful hostility to the facts that beggars belief. The first half of the book is a pretty decent biography of Lincoln in terms of his views on economic justice. The second half of the book is an unmitigated disaster.
In that disaster, though, we see much that is worthy of notice for our times. This book is a demonstration of the moral blindness that exists among the American left, in the way that economic opportunity for contemporary Americans is tied directly to government action. Lincoln's desire for a government role in internal improvements, which itself was controversial in his time, is expanded beyond all recognition as a justification for a paternalistic government that in many cases prevents the sort of rise that Lincoln himself achieved over the course of his life. This book entirely fails to take into account Lincoln's well-earned reputation for being a self-made man, with an intense drive for self-education and self-improvement, and in seeking to open the path to improvement to all Americans, regardless of their gender or ethnicity or social class, looking at Lincoln's own rise as a way to justify the sort of intrusive and activist government that would have punished Lincoln and others like him through progressive taxation, statist education, and burdensome bureaucratic regulation. The fact that the authors cannot see that Lincoln's own rise was inimical to their own political agenda suggests the level of blindness on the part of the left and their intense need to claim warrant for their misguided views through misinterpretation and misappropriation of Lincoln's thought and behavior.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
As is generally the case, the authors mix truth with error in order to come up with their mistaken conclusion. In terms of its contents, the book amounts to a historical analysis that is as close to reality as that by Marxist historians like Howard Zinn or by hostile revisionists like DiLorenzo. Seemingly inevitably, strident and extreme political approaches and a mistaken factual and historical foundation go hand in hand. This book, a bit over 250 pages, is divided into two sections. The first section looks at the life of Abraham Lincoln as providing an argument for the need for equality of opportunity. The author forms an inventive and not inaccurate case for Lincoln's hostility to slavery arising from its denial of the possibility for advancement to the level of one's God-given gifts and abilities, an economic form of injustice. The second part of the book looks at the varied arguments and achievement of this equality of opportunity in the aftermath of Lincoln's assassination, and it is here that the book is at its most troubling, tying Lincoln's essentially middle-class desire for education and increased economic and social prestige and political office to a socialist call for increased taxation for a bloated welfare state. That the author can look at the taxation rates of the contemporary United States and view our government expenditures as "starved" because they only make up 30% of our GDP shows a willful hostility to the facts that beggars belief. The first half of the book is a pretty decent biography of Lincoln in terms of his views on economic justice. The second half of the book is an unmitigated disaster.
In that disaster, though, we see much that is worthy of notice for our times. This book is a demonstration of the moral blindness that exists among the American left, in the way that economic opportunity for contemporary Americans is tied directly to government action. Lincoln's desire for a government role in internal improvements, which itself was controversial in his time, is expanded beyond all recognition as a justification for a paternalistic government that in many cases prevents the sort of rise that Lincoln himself achieved over the course of his life. This book entirely fails to take into account Lincoln's well-earned reputation for being a self-made man, with an intense drive for self-education and self-improvement, and in seeking to open the path to improvement to all Americans, regardless of their gender or ethnicity or social class, looking at Lincoln's own rise as a way to justify the sort of intrusive and activist government that would have punished Lincoln and others like him through progressive taxation, statist education, and burdensome bureaucratic regulation. The fact that the authors cannot see that Lincoln's own rise was inimical to their own political agenda suggests the level of blindness on the part of the left and their intense need to claim warrant for their misguided views through misinterpretation and misappropriation of Lincoln's thought and behavior.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
January 22, 2023
A useful re-focusing of Lincoln's legacy and how it impacts (and should help guide) our economic debates today. Lincoln's work and philosophy tends to be skewed either by narrowly focusing on his wartime efforts or emancipation, and the economic/philosophical underpinnings of his activities aren't always taken well into account. This book is an important additional look at his work and its continuing message to us.
November 8, 2016
I thought it was a very good book, although I am just going to have to think a bit more about the stretch from some of Lincoln's comments to the current issues regarding economic and social inequality. The thesis is that Lincoln's precept in his time and subject to the constraints of his time are the same as we need to think about today in the economic and social inequality context. Holzer certainly knows Lincoln, and Garfinkle knows economics.
There are two good quotes from the book. One is from Lincoln's first message to Congress on December 3, 1861 which extols labor over capital and cautions against bestowing too much political power on capital. Almost Marxian, at least if you read it the authors' way.
The second is the famous claim by Reagan that Lincoln said this:
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
Lincoln never said that. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln/...
There are two good quotes from the book. One is from Lincoln's first message to Congress on December 3, 1861 which extols labor over capital and cautions against bestowing too much political power on capital. Almost Marxian, at least if you read it the authors' way.
The second is the famous claim by Reagan that Lincoln said this:
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
Lincoln never said that. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln/...
January 31, 2023
This book started out pretty well. Having read at least half a dozen biographies on Lincoln and many more books on the Civil War in general, I was very interested in the argument the author was laying out to make a case for Lincoln's economic motivations behind the Civil War. He pointed out some things that were very compelling. However, the book definitely took a turn for the worse when the author started to lay out how succeeding Presidents of the United States have appropriated Lincoln's legacy to support their own agenda. At first, I wasn't quite sure where the author stood and it seemed to be a little objective. But then it become quickly apparent, after about Woodrow Wilson (if I recall correctly), that the author definitely leaned--more like favored or privileged or promoted or championed--the liberal interpretation of Lincoln's agenda. The liberal progressive 21st century interpretation of "government FOR the people" fell into just about every presentist trap available. While Lincoln was easily one of the more flexible, fluid politicians in our country's history based on circumstances who refused to commit to certain positions until he felt he knew all the ins and outs and possible ramifications, the author arrogantly turned him into a pretty rigid liberal progressive "the government should take care of everyone" socialistic president. The author shamelessly put ideas and essentially words into the mouth of the dead president to justify every social program conceivable, with an abundance of self-inflicted amnesia that while Lincoln was interested in government that provided opportunity for all, he didn't seem to be interested in "taking care" of people. I wouldn't recommend this book as a first look at Lincoln, that's for sure. People could easily be taken in by the argument who haven't read a number of other biographies on Lincoln and who don't have a background of other perspectives to weigh the author's claims against. While the book started out well, it ended rather disappointingly.
October 11, 2018
The first half of the book is what I expected, about Lincoln's belief in America as a land of economic opportunity, etc. Then about halfway through the book Lincoln dies, and the rest of the book primarily dealt with how succeeding progressives have taken up Lincoln's cause. I was disappointed and didn't finish it.
December 27, 2021
Part One of the book was great and provided great analysis and facts of Lincoln and what drove his decisions. Part Two drastically decreased the quality of the book, as it was simply an argument stating income taxes boost the economy. The book really would have been much better without Part Two.
December 13, 2020
Provides many new and interesting perspectives regarding Abraham Lincoln and how they relate to today's political spectrum.
March 19, 2016
Certainly thought-provoking but not sure they made a convincing case for the title theme of economic opportunity driving his motivation over abolition. What I was most reminded of after reading it was how Lincoln would not recognize the GOP of today. He favored an activist government which no member of the Republican party today would even touch. The GOP of today has also championed disenfranchisement of the 99% through their voter ID laws and permissive corporate influence. One of the things you don't think about in looking at the context of the times was the perceived threat of freed slaves to compete against whites for jobs. And by extrapolation to current times of the perceived threat of undocumented aliens to "take" jobs from white folks.
Notes.
4 What Lincoln feared most was the spread of the southern economic system.
5 Father of the American Dream.
12 Striking degree of social mobility.
26 Lincoln favored an activity federal government.
106 The question of freed blacks as competition for white jobs.
109 Did not expect freed blacks to move north.
121 We suffer by your presence speech to group of freed blacks.
126 Emancipation Proclamation a necessity of war not a moral imperative.
Notes.
4 What Lincoln feared most was the spread of the southern economic system.
5 Father of the American Dream.
12 Striking degree of social mobility.
26 Lincoln favored an activity federal government.
106 The question of freed blacks as competition for white jobs.
109 Did not expect freed blacks to move north.
121 We suffer by your presence speech to group of freed blacks.
126 Emancipation Proclamation a necessity of war not a moral imperative.
January 7, 2016
I've been had. I thought this book would shed light on Lincoln's ideas about the economic future of the Nation. Part 1 of the book certainly does this. I suspect part 1 was written by the Lincoln scholar Holzer. He does his best to get the point across but it seems he's stretching as there is much repetition. Not surprising since Lincoln was consumed by the Civil War. But Lincoln's lifelong adherence to Calhoun's American System and his belief that labor begets capital can been seen in many of his actions. So far so good.
The second half of the book looks at the Lincoln's economic legacy through subsequent presidents with special focus on Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and Reagan and concludes with observations about today's new gilded age. I suspect this part of the book was written by Garfinkle, a progressive economist. While I agree with Garfinkle's views, I did not buy this book with an eye toward lamenting today's economic realities.
Maybe Holzer had some Lincoln materials laying around, met Garfinkle and decided to write a book. Whatever the case, a disappointment.
The second half of the book looks at the Lincoln's economic legacy through subsequent presidents with special focus on Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and Reagan and concludes with observations about today's new gilded age. I suspect this part of the book was written by Garfinkle, a progressive economist. While I agree with Garfinkle's views, I did not buy this book with an eye toward lamenting today's economic realities.
Maybe Holzer had some Lincoln materials laying around, met Garfinkle and decided to write a book. Whatever the case, a disappointment.
January 24, 2020
The argument the authors make is an interesting revisionist argument, that the main focus of Lincoln's moral energy was focused on achieving economic equality. However, the book falls flat because so often, they are not making an argument about Lincoln's economics but simply rehearsing the interesting but overtold tale of Lincoln. More problematic is the fact that it is not clear how this book is organized. It leaps around chronologically without any warning. The reader was reliving the Civil War, then suddenly he is jerked back to Lincoln's first election, then to Lincoln's boyhood, then back to the Civil War. A better editor would have forced the authors to adopt some sort of framing narrative, and would have cut out all the repetitive lines.
Read 60% of it before quitting.
Read 60% of it before quitting.
March 28, 2016
Overall I thought it was a good review of history I wanted to know better, particularly how the Republican Party evolved over time. The organization of Part 1 tripped me up a little because it wasn't purely chronological. It seemed to be organized more along the lines of Lincoln's role in our history, so some things were repeated. I thought using the second half of the book to talk about Lincoln's legacy in domestic economics was a great way to bring context to modern readers.
January 9, 2017
What a load of crap!
May 1, 2017
The purpose of this book is review Lincoln as a pioneer of American economic policy. In light of his roles as emancipator and commander and chief, his role as economic leader is often overlooked by historians and the general public alike.
This book plays down Lincoln as emancipator (something he seemed to have fallen into within his own mental and political lives late in his career), and puts the focus on what he had been premeditating since his teenage years: economic advancement for the American state and its individuals.
While Lincoln's mental makeup is complex (and always illusive, and large parts were completely lost to history on his death), the one certain thing that history can say is that Lincoln's primary political goal was economic advancement.
On this point, the first half of A Just and Generous Nation is one of the best Lincoln books in print. (More on this later.) With that said, the second half of the book seems to have been written by Norton Garfinkel, and deals with FDR continuing the economic work of Lincoln. This section is oversimplified and childish.
Here is my rebuttal to Mr. Garfinkel and the idea that FDR continued Lincoln's economic policy:
Authors need to stop pitting the economic ideas of FDR and Reagan against each other, and pointing to one being right and the other as wrong.
This two party system of economics is myopic, and fails to address diversity and inconsistency with economic principals. FDR and Reagan were both wrong in major aspects of their economic agenda, and both damaged economic stability and growth in different ways. Both presidents prescribed to theoretical (I like to use the word "experimental") ideologies.
FDR's New Deal policies were an experiment, both economically and legally (and peaked at the Supreme Court overturning his NRA agenda as illegal). Market Side Economics were Reagan's experiment in a strict conservative form of government that was reactionary to the more leftist policies of the New Deal. Both were ideologically and politically rigged with a group of the public in mind (FDR for the poor to win their votes, Reagan with business interests to secure his position within the Republican Party). Unsurprisingly, the groups of the public that both men targeted benefited from their ideas and supported them long after their deaths. They were close minded (or perhaps, simple minded) experimenters, and the use of either as example of how to run a national economy is disturbing. (I often use the metaphor that using FDR/Reagan as an example of economic leadership is akin to pointing to the experimental treatments for cancer in the 1960s as producing positive results in their time, and revoking modern medical understanding on the terms that experimentation caused a lot of good in its time. Yes, in the 1960s, the cancer experimentation was progressive, but it is regressive and backwards by 2017 standards, as 2017 standards will be in 2050. Both Reagan and FDR experimented with the ideas of Andrew Mellon and Henry Morgenthau respectively, but by 2017 standards, theses ideas are backwards and disturbingly outdated. They weren't universal economic ideas like those of Lincoln, but reactionary ideas to war and depression and inflation, and products of their times.)
The longest shadow of FDR's legacy is that he created a business resentment that in turn created Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and, perhaps most importantly, Ronald Reagan--all of which repealed his entire way of political thought. The longest shadow of Reagan's legacy was that he slowed government progress to a stop financially, and created a Congress and presidential successors who lack the power to control the economy, resulting in wealth inequality, the 2008 financial collapse, an unstable human capital market, and America's continued decrease in relevancy in the world market.
History cannot be clearer: both men and their ideas failed the standards of their own initiatives in a relatively short amount of time.
Modern intellectual economic understanding needs to point to the diversity of human experience as an economic reality. It cannot be understood in the black and white rhetoric of two economically simple minded presidents.
As a testament for the strange inconsistency of this multiple authored book, the diversity of economic experience was understood well by Lincoln. His First Address to Congress expresses more economic understanding in just a few pages than either Reagan or FDR expressed in either of their careers.
Both FDR and Reagan were both motivated by ideology and politics. The intellectually lacking FDR needed the poor masses to prop him up for four terms, and the inexperienced Reagan needed strong rhetoric to prop him up in the Republican Party amidst a plethora of cutthroat rivals.
Back to Lincoln and Holzer:
Lincoln, in contrast, came to his economic understanding from his own social/economic rise. His economic thought and subsequent policy differs from any president before or after him because it is based in individual freedom, as opposed to macro management of economic markets (as FDR and Reagan were concerned with).
Lincoln's primary goal economically was to use government to "clear the path" for individuals to have the economic means available to them to be able to persue their own work and interests. In other words, he wanted for the American populous, regardless of their economic situations, to experience what he had experienced in his own economic and political rise. He believed that an American government had the ability to take this direction.
The difference in Lincoln's economic thought from other presidents needs to be underlined. While other presidents focused on markets and demographics, Lincoln focused on the individual, and left economic advancement up to the individual. He saw both government and business as institutions that could stand in the way of the individual from achieving economic prosperity, and he dedicated his entire presidency to "clearing the path" for individual freedom. (Harry Truman actually came the closest to continuing Lincoln's economic ideology with his global initiatives for the American state within the world structure. This isn't surprising, considering that Truman, from his birth as a farmer through his death occurring before presidents were paid after office, was one of the poorest presidents, and had a similar personal economic rise to Lincoln.)
Lincoln expressed his economic thought in his first address to Congress, where he intellectually defended labor over capital. What is most jarring about this first speech is that it doesn't address the outbreak of the Civil War at all. Lincoln seems to be making a statement here for his own legacy: that he viewed the outbreak of war as a defense of personal economic freedom, and that he would continue the war to defend that institution. The "generous" in his "just and generous nation nation" statement, then, is reference to Lincoln's belief (and war over) economic prosperity for individuals.
The first half of A Just and Generous Nation is essential scholarship on Lincoln. I doubt any book before this has expressed Lincoln's economic views clearer, and closer to how he must have seen them in his own mind. The second half, sadly, is popular economic tripe and doesn't deserve to be paired with the first half of the book.
It has come time for Lincoln, in all of his complexity, to stop being a mirror for society and individuals, and that he can (finally, after 200 years) start speaking for himself. The first half of this book is a step in that direction.
This book plays down Lincoln as emancipator (something he seemed to have fallen into within his own mental and political lives late in his career), and puts the focus on what he had been premeditating since his teenage years: economic advancement for the American state and its individuals.
While Lincoln's mental makeup is complex (and always illusive, and large parts were completely lost to history on his death), the one certain thing that history can say is that Lincoln's primary political goal was economic advancement.
On this point, the first half of A Just and Generous Nation is one of the best Lincoln books in print. (More on this later.) With that said, the second half of the book seems to have been written by Norton Garfinkel, and deals with FDR continuing the economic work of Lincoln. This section is oversimplified and childish.
Here is my rebuttal to Mr. Garfinkel and the idea that FDR continued Lincoln's economic policy:
Authors need to stop pitting the economic ideas of FDR and Reagan against each other, and pointing to one being right and the other as wrong.
This two party system of economics is myopic, and fails to address diversity and inconsistency with economic principals. FDR and Reagan were both wrong in major aspects of their economic agenda, and both damaged economic stability and growth in different ways. Both presidents prescribed to theoretical (I like to use the word "experimental") ideologies.
FDR's New Deal policies were an experiment, both economically and legally (and peaked at the Supreme Court overturning his NRA agenda as illegal). Market Side Economics were Reagan's experiment in a strict conservative form of government that was reactionary to the more leftist policies of the New Deal. Both were ideologically and politically rigged with a group of the public in mind (FDR for the poor to win their votes, Reagan with business interests to secure his position within the Republican Party). Unsurprisingly, the groups of the public that both men targeted benefited from their ideas and supported them long after their deaths. They were close minded (or perhaps, simple minded) experimenters, and the use of either as example of how to run a national economy is disturbing. (I often use the metaphor that using FDR/Reagan as an example of economic leadership is akin to pointing to the experimental treatments for cancer in the 1960s as producing positive results in their time, and revoking modern medical understanding on the terms that experimentation caused a lot of good in its time. Yes, in the 1960s, the cancer experimentation was progressive, but it is regressive and backwards by 2017 standards, as 2017 standards will be in 2050. Both Reagan and FDR experimented with the ideas of Andrew Mellon and Henry Morgenthau respectively, but by 2017 standards, theses ideas are backwards and disturbingly outdated. They weren't universal economic ideas like those of Lincoln, but reactionary ideas to war and depression and inflation, and products of their times.)
The longest shadow of FDR's legacy is that he created a business resentment that in turn created Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and, perhaps most importantly, Ronald Reagan--all of which repealed his entire way of political thought. The longest shadow of Reagan's legacy was that he slowed government progress to a stop financially, and created a Congress and presidential successors who lack the power to control the economy, resulting in wealth inequality, the 2008 financial collapse, an unstable human capital market, and America's continued decrease in relevancy in the world market.
History cannot be clearer: both men and their ideas failed the standards of their own initiatives in a relatively short amount of time.
Modern intellectual economic understanding needs to point to the diversity of human experience as an economic reality. It cannot be understood in the black and white rhetoric of two economically simple minded presidents.
As a testament for the strange inconsistency of this multiple authored book, the diversity of economic experience was understood well by Lincoln. His First Address to Congress expresses more economic understanding in just a few pages than either Reagan or FDR expressed in either of their careers.
Both FDR and Reagan were both motivated by ideology and politics. The intellectually lacking FDR needed the poor masses to prop him up for four terms, and the inexperienced Reagan needed strong rhetoric to prop him up in the Republican Party amidst a plethora of cutthroat rivals.
Back to Lincoln and Holzer:
Lincoln, in contrast, came to his economic understanding from his own social/economic rise. His economic thought and subsequent policy differs from any president before or after him because it is based in individual freedom, as opposed to macro management of economic markets (as FDR and Reagan were concerned with).
Lincoln's primary goal economically was to use government to "clear the path" for individuals to have the economic means available to them to be able to persue their own work and interests. In other words, he wanted for the American populous, regardless of their economic situations, to experience what he had experienced in his own economic and political rise. He believed that an American government had the ability to take this direction.
The difference in Lincoln's economic thought from other presidents needs to be underlined. While other presidents focused on markets and demographics, Lincoln focused on the individual, and left economic advancement up to the individual. He saw both government and business as institutions that could stand in the way of the individual from achieving economic prosperity, and he dedicated his entire presidency to "clearing the path" for individual freedom. (Harry Truman actually came the closest to continuing Lincoln's economic ideology with his global initiatives for the American state within the world structure. This isn't surprising, considering that Truman, from his birth as a farmer through his death occurring before presidents were paid after office, was one of the poorest presidents, and had a similar personal economic rise to Lincoln.)
Lincoln expressed his economic thought in his first address to Congress, where he intellectually defended labor over capital. What is most jarring about this first speech is that it doesn't address the outbreak of the Civil War at all. Lincoln seems to be making a statement here for his own legacy: that he viewed the outbreak of war as a defense of personal economic freedom, and that he would continue the war to defend that institution. The "generous" in his "just and generous nation nation" statement, then, is reference to Lincoln's belief (and war over) economic prosperity for individuals.
The first half of A Just and Generous Nation is essential scholarship on Lincoln. I doubt any book before this has expressed Lincoln's economic views clearer, and closer to how he must have seen them in his own mind. The second half, sadly, is popular economic tripe and doesn't deserve to be paired with the first half of the book.
It has come time for Lincoln, in all of his complexity, to stop being a mirror for society and individuals, and that he can (finally, after 200 years) start speaking for himself. The first half of this book is a step in that direction.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews