What do you think?
Rate this book
Summoned to Glory: The Audacious Life of Abraham Lincoln
A radical reinterpretation of America's greatest president. Where previous Lincoln biographers describe his temperament as "moderate," "passive," or even "conservative," historian Richard Striner offers a stunningly original perspective that will shed significant new light on one of the most studied figures in American history. Striner shows Lincoln's audacity as no other book has ever done. By emphasizing the workings of Lincoln's mind--stressing his cunning, his overall honesty, strategic thinking--even his ability to change his mind--Striner looks anew at many topics and themes important to Lincoln's story that either revise or add new meaning to the work of previous biographers. His insights into Lincoln's life, but also into antebellum America, and the military and political history of the Civil War, make this book indispensable for well-read armchair historians, seasoned students of Lincoln, the Civil War, or the American presidency and newcomers alike.
- GenresHistoryAmerican History
560 pages, Hardcover
Published June 1, 2020
11 people are currently reading
61 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 - 8 of 8 reviews
October 31, 2025
I’ve read more than my share of Lincoln biographies, and each one has its subtle traits and points of view. There’s nothing subtle about Striner’s biography, though, which unashamedly praises Lincoln, though he manages to do so convincingly, accessibly, engagingly, and without veering into hagiography.
Portraying Lincoln as our greatest president is nothing new. But Striner doesn’t resort to platitudes in making his case. He lays out his argument that Lincoln always endeavored to end slavery and didn’t just decide halfway through the Civil War to shift its purpose, that his own personal struggles with family difficulties and depression gave him the fortitude to succeed as president, and that he skillfully wielded power to achieve a moral goal, with cunning, strategic thinking and - as the book’s title suggests - audaciousness.
The book largely plays out as a chronological biography, hitting on the familiar highlights of Lincoln’s life and political career, but it pauses several times to explore complicated topics that warrant more consideration. Striner provides excellent context about events and issues of the time, with easy to understand explanations, not just about what happened but why they did. And he examines Lincoln’s early life in the context of how it shaped his character, and looks for clues in his early political career as to what kind of leader he'd become.
One of the first aspects of Lincoln’s life that Striner pauses to consider is Lincoln’s views on race. Particularly during the Lincoln-Douglas debates, historians and biographers have struggled to reconcile Lincoln’s sometimes racist comments with his later role as the Great Emancipator - some arguing that he was no more of an egalitarian on race than anyone else at the time, others arguing he was just pandering to a racist electorate. Striner considers whether such comments were “a sign of an inner conviction in Lincoln or a demonstration of no-holds-barred opportunism,” by noting his earlier Peoria Speech, which pointedly did not argue in favor of whites’ self-interest or question the intelligence or capabilities of Blacks, but argued against the inhumanity of slavery and the idea that Blacks were somehow subhuman. Lincoln was not campaigning for office and having to appeal to voters in this particular speech, so Striner argues that these were his true convictions on race.
After all, Striner notes, Lincoln could often speak in hair-splitting legalese when he needed to be ambiguous or evasive for a greater purpose. During his debates with Douglas, Lincoln aimed to have it both ways as well, “to sound the way that racists demanded but to do it in the least offensive manner,” Striner writes. “His language was mild - indeed, it was weak by the standards of racists - when compared to the virulence of Douglas.” And if this sounds like he’s just a Lincoln apologist, he makes the argument more thoroughly and convincingly than I’ve summarized here.
Later, during Lincoln’s presidency, Striner is able to boil down complicated events into very easy to understand summaries. In describing Lincoln’s strategy shift from pushing a compensated emancipation plan to the Emancipation Proclamation, he explains that Lincoln’s plan “had been to start with border states in order to show the rebels that emancipation could be easy. He got nowhere, and so he flipped the whole sequence: he would start with the rebels and go after the border states later.”
Other times, however, he can oversimplify, as in his description of the earlier Fort Sumter resupply mission. Striner states outright that Lincoln intended to manipulate the South into starting the war by firing the first shot, which is not a universally accepted interpretation. He even cites James McPherson in support of his position, when McPherson actually believes otherwise.
And I thought Striner overplayed his hand when discussing Lincoln’s Ten Percent Plan for readmitting Southern states after the war. Critics, then and now, have accused Lincoln of being too lenient. But Striner reads a whole lot into the plan, calling it “a masterpiece of cunning,” “a daring and audacious ploy,” with a “secret” and “tricky dimension.” Yes, Lincoln could be strategic and audacious and even use misdirection in how he sought to achieve his goals, but this plan is probably one that can be accepted at face value, as its aim was to speed along the process of reunion without being punitive. But Striner sees a hidden agenda - by allowing seceded states to re-establish governments after only ten percent of voters took a loyalty oath, it meant “Southerners who refused to recognize emancipation would not be able to vote… only the opponents of slavery would be allowed to,” he marvels. But I'm not sure this is correct - mandating a loyalty oath as a prerequisite for voting is not actually stated in Lincoln's plan, and he made it quite explicit that the state governments that would be formed would have to recognize emancipation, so there was nothing really “cunning” or “secret” or “tricky” about the plan.
That’s the only place I really thought Striner overstated his case. But he quickly recovers as he goes on to take a close look at Lincoln’s last speech, looking for clues as to how Lincoln would have carried out Reconstruction. This speech is typically noted only for its line endorsing Black suffrage, which set off John Wilkes Booth. But Striner examines it closely and quotes it at length, for evidence-based and not mere speculative what-ifs about what a Lincoln-led Reconstruction might have looked like.
The book’s soaring conclusion leaves no doubt as to how Striner feels about his subject. A “great man of history” book may seem like something of a throwback, but Striner largely pulls it off here, by not simply praising Lincoln, but backing up his praise with evidence and analysis. Even after reading more than my share of Lincoln biographies, this one - with its accessible, enjoyable writing and thoughtful, (mostly) convincing arguments - was a very worthy addition to that list.
Portraying Lincoln as our greatest president is nothing new. But Striner doesn’t resort to platitudes in making his case. He lays out his argument that Lincoln always endeavored to end slavery and didn’t just decide halfway through the Civil War to shift its purpose, that his own personal struggles with family difficulties and depression gave him the fortitude to succeed as president, and that he skillfully wielded power to achieve a moral goal, with cunning, strategic thinking and - as the book’s title suggests - audaciousness.
The book largely plays out as a chronological biography, hitting on the familiar highlights of Lincoln’s life and political career, but it pauses several times to explore complicated topics that warrant more consideration. Striner provides excellent context about events and issues of the time, with easy to understand explanations, not just about what happened but why they did. And he examines Lincoln’s early life in the context of how it shaped his character, and looks for clues in his early political career as to what kind of leader he'd become.
One of the first aspects of Lincoln’s life that Striner pauses to consider is Lincoln’s views on race. Particularly during the Lincoln-Douglas debates, historians and biographers have struggled to reconcile Lincoln’s sometimes racist comments with his later role as the Great Emancipator - some arguing that he was no more of an egalitarian on race than anyone else at the time, others arguing he was just pandering to a racist electorate. Striner considers whether such comments were “a sign of an inner conviction in Lincoln or a demonstration of no-holds-barred opportunism,” by noting his earlier Peoria Speech, which pointedly did not argue in favor of whites’ self-interest or question the intelligence or capabilities of Blacks, but argued against the inhumanity of slavery and the idea that Blacks were somehow subhuman. Lincoln was not campaigning for office and having to appeal to voters in this particular speech, so Striner argues that these were his true convictions on race.
After all, Striner notes, Lincoln could often speak in hair-splitting legalese when he needed to be ambiguous or evasive for a greater purpose. During his debates with Douglas, Lincoln aimed to have it both ways as well, “to sound the way that racists demanded but to do it in the least offensive manner,” Striner writes. “His language was mild - indeed, it was weak by the standards of racists - when compared to the virulence of Douglas.” And if this sounds like he’s just a Lincoln apologist, he makes the argument more thoroughly and convincingly than I’ve summarized here.
Later, during Lincoln’s presidency, Striner is able to boil down complicated events into very easy to understand summaries. In describing Lincoln’s strategy shift from pushing a compensated emancipation plan to the Emancipation Proclamation, he explains that Lincoln’s plan “had been to start with border states in order to show the rebels that emancipation could be easy. He got nowhere, and so he flipped the whole sequence: he would start with the rebels and go after the border states later.”
Other times, however, he can oversimplify, as in his description of the earlier Fort Sumter resupply mission. Striner states outright that Lincoln intended to manipulate the South into starting the war by firing the first shot, which is not a universally accepted interpretation. He even cites James McPherson in support of his position, when McPherson actually believes otherwise.
And I thought Striner overplayed his hand when discussing Lincoln’s Ten Percent Plan for readmitting Southern states after the war. Critics, then and now, have accused Lincoln of being too lenient. But Striner reads a whole lot into the plan, calling it “a masterpiece of cunning,” “a daring and audacious ploy,” with a “secret” and “tricky dimension.” Yes, Lincoln could be strategic and audacious and even use misdirection in how he sought to achieve his goals, but this plan is probably one that can be accepted at face value, as its aim was to speed along the process of reunion without being punitive. But Striner sees a hidden agenda - by allowing seceded states to re-establish governments after only ten percent of voters took a loyalty oath, it meant “Southerners who refused to recognize emancipation would not be able to vote… only the opponents of slavery would be allowed to,” he marvels. But I'm not sure this is correct - mandating a loyalty oath as a prerequisite for voting is not actually stated in Lincoln's plan, and he made it quite explicit that the state governments that would be formed would have to recognize emancipation, so there was nothing really “cunning” or “secret” or “tricky” about the plan.
That’s the only place I really thought Striner overstated his case. But he quickly recovers as he goes on to take a close look at Lincoln’s last speech, looking for clues as to how Lincoln would have carried out Reconstruction. This speech is typically noted only for its line endorsing Black suffrage, which set off John Wilkes Booth. But Striner examines it closely and quotes it at length, for evidence-based and not mere speculative what-ifs about what a Lincoln-led Reconstruction might have looked like.
The book’s soaring conclusion leaves no doubt as to how Striner feels about his subject. A “great man of history” book may seem like something of a throwback, but Striner largely pulls it off here, by not simply praising Lincoln, but backing up his praise with evidence and analysis. Even after reading more than my share of Lincoln biographies, this one - with its accessible, enjoyable writing and thoughtful, (mostly) convincing arguments - was a very worthy addition to that list.
May 31, 2023
Put this book on the shelf next to Team of Rivals. Yes, it was that good. The author shows how Lincoln was not only a great leader but also a MASTER politician. Actually, the more I think about it, this is the only Lincoln book written since Team of Rivals that warrants a place in that elite company. Overall a very good effort and well worth the time spent reading it!!!
February 10, 2021
Every Lincoln book I’ve read has taught me something useful for life. Is it easy to apply his wisdom in our lives ? Not at all but we can try and fail. Perhaps we might succeed but at least in that process of striving for his qualities we will improve.
A few lessons:
1. Greatness does not come from the title (POTUS) but how one handles the onslaught of calamities that fate throws at you and despite that how you persist to achieve the goals of the role you are given to play on earth.
2. Insults from subordinates would be handled with vengeance by a lesser evolved being but a higher EQ man like Lincoln brushes it off. (E.g: Insults from General McClellan to all the top cabinet members).
3. When in anger pour your scolding into a letter but then don’t send it right away to the one who might deserve your wrath. After few days when anger subsided one sees the situation differently. Lincoln had many letters in his desk not sent.
4. Able to empathize with all human beings despite their flaws that includes his enemies who he was waging a deadliest war at!
5. Even if you have zero knowledge or experience in an area you can build your knowledge in it through learning. (E.g. Lincoln getting books on war from library of Congress to study meticulously military strategies and develop as a better commander in chief over the war).
6. Willing and being open to change his opinions (e.g. he was not an abolitionist but half way into his first term his opinions changed. Similarly he was never a member of church in his new Salem years and agnostic but became a voracious reader of Bible during the war years).
A few lessons:
1. Greatness does not come from the title (POTUS) but how one handles the onslaught of calamities that fate throws at you and despite that how you persist to achieve the goals of the role you are given to play on earth.
2. Insults from subordinates would be handled with vengeance by a lesser evolved being but a higher EQ man like Lincoln brushes it off. (E.g: Insults from General McClellan to all the top cabinet members).
3. When in anger pour your scolding into a letter but then don’t send it right away to the one who might deserve your wrath. After few days when anger subsided one sees the situation differently. Lincoln had many letters in his desk not sent.
4. Able to empathize with all human beings despite their flaws that includes his enemies who he was waging a deadliest war at!
5. Even if you have zero knowledge or experience in an area you can build your knowledge in it through learning. (E.g. Lincoln getting books on war from library of Congress to study meticulously military strategies and develop as a better commander in chief over the war).
6. Willing and being open to change his opinions (e.g. he was not an abolitionist but half way into his first term his opinions changed. Similarly he was never a member of church in his new Salem years and agnostic but became a voracious reader of Bible during the war years).
November 2, 2020
Anyone who wants to understand the 16th US president needs to read this book. The author goes beyond the traditional hero worship and delves into Lincoln's motivations, personality, and psychology, including his dark side and ongoing depression. The author claims that Lincoln was always morally opposed to slavery and used his natural talents to accomplish his objectives. His brooding dark inclinations and his ability to use lawyerly tactics, and the fact that he studied warfare tactics and was very involved with the war, including visits to the troops, were well-suited to the formidable task. We also get a taste of the depression and self-centered antics of Mary Todd Lincoln, perhaps the most enigmatic First Lady. The author supplies plenty of details, including letters and accounts from many people, to illustrate his points. I feel that I know much more about Lincoln and the American Civil War.
October 3, 2020
Excellent must-read book. [Longer review coming shortly]
March 1, 2021
Most difficult Lincoln book I have read and probably least interesting. It was okay but the others better.
December 5, 2023
Loved it. Loved it, loved it.
January 21, 2024
I have a newfound respect for Lincoln. I came into reading this book with biases. Primarily, I judged him, looking at his actions as if it was 2024. For what he accomplished in 1860, he was progressive and anti-racist. I recommend reading this book with an open mind to understand how he overcame the established anti-Black racism that existed at the time.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews