What do you think?
Rate this book
1864: Lincoln at the Gates of History
In a masterful narrative, historian and biographer Charles Bracelen Flood brings to life the drama of Lincoln's final year, in which he oversaw the last campaigns of the Civil War, was reelected as president, and laid out his majestic vision for the nation's future in a reunified South and in the expanding West.In "1864: Lincoln at the Gates of History," the reader is plunged into the heart of that crucial year as Lincoln faced enormous challenges. The Civil War was far from being won: as the year began, Lincoln had yet to appoint Ulysses S. Grant as the general-in-chief who would finally implement the bloody strategy and dramatic campaigns that would bring victory.
At the same time, with the North sick of the war, Lincoln was facing a reelection battle in which hundreds of thousands of "Peace Democrats" were ready to start negotiations that could leave the Confederacy as a separate American nation, free to continue the practice of slavery. In his personal life, he had to deal with the erratic behavior of his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, and both Lincolns were haunted by the sudden death, two years before, of their beloved eleven-year-old son, Willie.
"1864" is the story of Lincoln's struggle with all this -- the war on the battlefields and a political scene in which his own secretary of the treasury, Salmon P. Chase, was working against him in an effort to become the Republican candidate himself. The North was shocked by such events as Grant's attack at Cold Harbor, during which seven thousand Union soldiers were killed in twenty minutes, and the Battle of the Crater, where three thousand Union men died in a bungled attempt to blow up Confederate trenches. The year became so bleak that on August 23, Lincoln wrote in a memorandum, "This morning, as for several days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be reelected." But, with the increasing success of his generals, and a majority of the American public ready to place its faith in him, Lincoln and the nation ended 1864 with the close of the war in sight and slavery on the verge of extinction.
"1864" presents the man who not only saved the nation, but also, despite the turmoil of the war and political infighting, set the stage for westward expansion through the Homestead Act, the railroads, and the Act to Encourage Immigration.
As 1864 ends and Lincoln, reelected, is planning to heal the nation, John Wilkes Booth, whose stalking of Lincoln through 1864 is one of this book's suspenseful subplots, is a few weeks away from killing him.
At the same time, with the North sick of the war, Lincoln was facing a reelection battle in which hundreds of thousands of "Peace Democrats" were ready to start negotiations that could leave the Confederacy as a separate American nation, free to continue the practice of slavery. In his personal life, he had to deal with the erratic behavior of his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, and both Lincolns were haunted by the sudden death, two years before, of their beloved eleven-year-old son, Willie.
"1864" is the story of Lincoln's struggle with all this -- the war on the battlefields and a political scene in which his own secretary of the treasury, Salmon P. Chase, was working against him in an effort to become the Republican candidate himself. The North was shocked by such events as Grant's attack at Cold Harbor, during which seven thousand Union soldiers were killed in twenty minutes, and the Battle of the Crater, where three thousand Union men died in a bungled attempt to blow up Confederate trenches. The year became so bleak that on August 23, Lincoln wrote in a memorandum, "This morning, as for several days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be reelected." But, with the increasing success of his generals, and a majority of the American public ready to place its faith in him, Lincoln and the nation ended 1864 with the close of the war in sight and slavery on the verge of extinction.
"1864" presents the man who not only saved the nation, but also, despite the turmoil of the war and political infighting, set the stage for westward expansion through the Homestead Act, the railroads, and the Act to Encourage Immigration.
As 1864 ends and Lincoln, reelected, is planning to heal the nation, John Wilkes Booth, whose stalking of Lincoln through 1864 is one of this book's suspenseful subplots, is a few weeks away from killing him.
544 pages, Hardcover
First published February 3, 2009
29 people are currently reading
447 people want to read
About the author
Charles Bracelen Flood
17 books24 followersCharles Bracelen Flood was born in Manhattan, and graduated from Harvard, where he was a member of Archibald MacLeish’s noted creative writing seminar, English S, and was on the literary board of the Harvard Lampoon. (In 2001, Flood was honored with the Lampoon’s Clem Wood Award; past recipients have included George Plimpton, John Updike, and Conan O’Brien.)
Love is a Bridge, Flood’s first novel, received nationwide critical attention, and was on the New York Times Bestseller list for 26 weeks. It won the Houghton Mifflin Literary Fellowship Award. The twelve books he has written include the novels A Distant Drum and More Lives Than One. Praising Flood’s The War of the Innocents, his account of his year spent in Vietnam as a correspondent, John Updike said of him, “This brave and compassionate reporter’s account of a year spent with our armed forces in Vietnam tells more of the physical actualities and moral complexities of the American involvement than any other book I have read.” Flood’s Rise, and Fight Again won the American Revolution Round Table Annual Award for 1976, the Bicentennial Year, and his Hitler - The Path to Power, a History Book Club selection, was among the successful studies in history and biography that followed. All his books have also appeared in paperback.
Flood’s first venture into the Civil War era was Lee - The Last Years, which was a Book-of-the-Month Club selection and won the Colonial Dames of America Annual Book Award. Lee was followed by Grant and Sherman - The Friendship That Won the Civil War, a work that the Washington Post described as “beautifully defined and explored…a powerful and illuminating study of the military collaboration that won the war for the Union.” Salon.com named it as one of the ”Top 12 Civil War Books Ever Written.” Of his 1864: Lincoln at the Gates of History, published in 2009, Lincoln’s Bicentennial Year, Kent Masterson Brown, author of Retreat from Gettysburg, said, “Lincoln walks off the pages as in no other book,” and in the New York Times Janet Maslin wrote, “Mr. Floods versatility is impressive …1864 compresses the multiple demands upon Lincoln into a tight time frame and thus captures a dizzying, visceral sense of why this single year took such a heavy toll.”
This writer’s short pieces have appeared in The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Esquire, and other magazines, and a number of his books have been translated into foreign languages. Flood’s journalistic experiences have taken him to many countries, including being a reporter for the Associated Press at the Olympics held in Melbourne, Rome, Tokyo and Mexico City. He has been a Senior Fulbright Scholar in Taiwan, and taught World Literature for two years at Sophia University in Tokyo.
Charles Bracelen Flood is a past president of the American Center of PEN, the international writers’ organization, and has served on the governing bodies of the Authors League and Authors Guild. He and his wife Katherine Burnam Flood live in Richmond, Kentucky, in that state’s Bluegrass region.
Love is a Bridge, Flood’s first novel, received nationwide critical attention, and was on the New York Times Bestseller list for 26 weeks. It won the Houghton Mifflin Literary Fellowship Award. The twelve books he has written include the novels A Distant Drum and More Lives Than One. Praising Flood’s The War of the Innocents, his account of his year spent in Vietnam as a correspondent, John Updike said of him, “This brave and compassionate reporter’s account of a year spent with our armed forces in Vietnam tells more of the physical actualities and moral complexities of the American involvement than any other book I have read.” Flood’s Rise, and Fight Again won the American Revolution Round Table Annual Award for 1976, the Bicentennial Year, and his Hitler - The Path to Power, a History Book Club selection, was among the successful studies in history and biography that followed. All his books have also appeared in paperback.
Flood’s first venture into the Civil War era was Lee - The Last Years, which was a Book-of-the-Month Club selection and won the Colonial Dames of America Annual Book Award. Lee was followed by Grant and Sherman - The Friendship That Won the Civil War, a work that the Washington Post described as “beautifully defined and explored…a powerful and illuminating study of the military collaboration that won the war for the Union.” Salon.com named it as one of the ”Top 12 Civil War Books Ever Written.” Of his 1864: Lincoln at the Gates of History, published in 2009, Lincoln’s Bicentennial Year, Kent Masterson Brown, author of Retreat from Gettysburg, said, “Lincoln walks off the pages as in no other book,” and in the New York Times Janet Maslin wrote, “Mr. Floods versatility is impressive …1864 compresses the multiple demands upon Lincoln into a tight time frame and thus captures a dizzying, visceral sense of why this single year took such a heavy toll.”
This writer’s short pieces have appeared in The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Esquire, and other magazines, and a number of his books have been translated into foreign languages. Flood’s journalistic experiences have taken him to many countries, including being a reporter for the Associated Press at the Olympics held in Melbourne, Rome, Tokyo and Mexico City. He has been a Senior Fulbright Scholar in Taiwan, and taught World Literature for two years at Sophia University in Tokyo.
Charles Bracelen Flood is a past president of the American Center of PEN, the international writers’ organization, and has served on the governing bodies of the Authors League and Authors Guild. He and his wife Katherine Burnam Flood live in Richmond, Kentucky, in that state’s Bluegrass region.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
February 25, 2020
Lincoln In 1864
Charles Bracelen Flood graduated from Harvard with ambitions to become a creative writer. After writing two early novels, he began to write history and biography. In recent years, Flood has turned his formidable writing skills to the American Civil War, writing a moving biography of the final years of Robert E. Lee and, in 2006, his "Grant and Sherman: the Friendship that Won the Civil War." Flood is an outstanding popular historian who uses his literary skills, interest in character, and ability to tell a story, to educate and to entertain.
Flood's latest book "1864:Lincoln at the Gates" begins slowly, but it soon gathers momentum as Flood ties together the threads of Lincoln's life and the progress of the Nation's life during the momentous year of 1864. In 1864, Lincoln stood for reelection to the presidency. The military aspect of the Civil War also came to a climax as Ulysses Grant became commander of the Union armies. Political and military affairs both took see-saw courses during 1864. Flood's book, with its novelistic skill in plots and sub-plots admirably ties together politics and military affairs together with much more about Lincoln's life and character.
The book shows Lincoln both as an idealist and as a consummately masterful politician. At the beginning of 1864, Lincoln's re-nomination was much in doubt. He was under attack from the radical wing of his party, including his Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, who wished a more aggressive prosecution of the war. Chase worked surreptitiously and feverishly to secure the presidential nomination for himself. Lincoln was also under attack from the various wings of the Democratic party, both those which supported the war effort and those which favored an immediate end to the conflict and a peace with the South. Flood shows how Lincoln used political muscle and acumen to secure the nomination and how Lincoln was involved in the fateful decision to give the vice-presidential nomination to Andrew Johnson. After securing the nomination, Lincoln, and most experts, believed up through August that Lincoln would likely lose the presidency to the Democratic candidate, General George McClellan. Military and political events late in the year worked to change the situation.
Flood's book does not include the detailed accounts of military movements that are found in many military studies of the conflict. His discussions of the Wilderness campaign, Cold Harbor, Grant's movement south to Petersburg, the Crater, Early's raid on Washington, Sheridan's campaign in the Shenandoah Valley, Sherman's capture of Atlanta and march to the Sea, and Thomas's victories at Franklin and Nashville are riveting, easy to follow, and compelling. More important, Flood places these military events in their political context and shows how they effected Lincoln's fortunes and the course of the 1864 election.
Flood also describes some of the other events that made 1864 a memorable year even apart from the Civil War, including the beginning of the transcontinental railroad, expansion of the telegraph, and a massive increase in immigration and industrialization. His portrayal of Lincoln suggests something of the complex inner workings of the man, including his troubled relationship with his wife Mary Todd. Flood offers a telling little scene of Lincoln playing with three stray cats on a visit to Grant near the end of the war. The book places great emphasis on Lincoln's meetings in his "shop" with common people seeking relief of various kinds from the vicissitudes of the conflict. Lincoln's meetings with Frederick Douglass are described as well as Lincoln's less well-known meeting with the abolitionist and feminist leader, Sojourner Truth. Lincoln's failings are shown as well. For example, there are some details in this book about Lincoln's involvement in black-market trade in cotton during the course of the war. The picture that emerges is that of a highly gifted, driven, but very human leader.
In this year of the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth and of national transition, there have already been many books encouraging reflection about Lincoln. For readers with a good basic overview of Lincoln and of the Civil War, this study by Charles Bracelen Flood will be an excellent choice.
Robin Friedman
Charles Bracelen Flood graduated from Harvard with ambitions to become a creative writer. After writing two early novels, he began to write history and biography. In recent years, Flood has turned his formidable writing skills to the American Civil War, writing a moving biography of the final years of Robert E. Lee and, in 2006, his "Grant and Sherman: the Friendship that Won the Civil War." Flood is an outstanding popular historian who uses his literary skills, interest in character, and ability to tell a story, to educate and to entertain.
Flood's latest book "1864:Lincoln at the Gates" begins slowly, but it soon gathers momentum as Flood ties together the threads of Lincoln's life and the progress of the Nation's life during the momentous year of 1864. In 1864, Lincoln stood for reelection to the presidency. The military aspect of the Civil War also came to a climax as Ulysses Grant became commander of the Union armies. Political and military affairs both took see-saw courses during 1864. Flood's book, with its novelistic skill in plots and sub-plots admirably ties together politics and military affairs together with much more about Lincoln's life and character.
The book shows Lincoln both as an idealist and as a consummately masterful politician. At the beginning of 1864, Lincoln's re-nomination was much in doubt. He was under attack from the radical wing of his party, including his Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, who wished a more aggressive prosecution of the war. Chase worked surreptitiously and feverishly to secure the presidential nomination for himself. Lincoln was also under attack from the various wings of the Democratic party, both those which supported the war effort and those which favored an immediate end to the conflict and a peace with the South. Flood shows how Lincoln used political muscle and acumen to secure the nomination and how Lincoln was involved in the fateful decision to give the vice-presidential nomination to Andrew Johnson. After securing the nomination, Lincoln, and most experts, believed up through August that Lincoln would likely lose the presidency to the Democratic candidate, General George McClellan. Military and political events late in the year worked to change the situation.
Flood's book does not include the detailed accounts of military movements that are found in many military studies of the conflict. His discussions of the Wilderness campaign, Cold Harbor, Grant's movement south to Petersburg, the Crater, Early's raid on Washington, Sheridan's campaign in the Shenandoah Valley, Sherman's capture of Atlanta and march to the Sea, and Thomas's victories at Franklin and Nashville are riveting, easy to follow, and compelling. More important, Flood places these military events in their political context and shows how they effected Lincoln's fortunes and the course of the 1864 election.
Flood also describes some of the other events that made 1864 a memorable year even apart from the Civil War, including the beginning of the transcontinental railroad, expansion of the telegraph, and a massive increase in immigration and industrialization. His portrayal of Lincoln suggests something of the complex inner workings of the man, including his troubled relationship with his wife Mary Todd. Flood offers a telling little scene of Lincoln playing with three stray cats on a visit to Grant near the end of the war. The book places great emphasis on Lincoln's meetings in his "shop" with common people seeking relief of various kinds from the vicissitudes of the conflict. Lincoln's meetings with Frederick Douglass are described as well as Lincoln's less well-known meeting with the abolitionist and feminist leader, Sojourner Truth. Lincoln's failings are shown as well. For example, there are some details in this book about Lincoln's involvement in black-market trade in cotton during the course of the war. The picture that emerges is that of a highly gifted, driven, but very human leader.
In this year of the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth and of national transition, there have already been many books encouraging reflection about Lincoln. For readers with a good basic overview of Lincoln and of the Civil War, this study by Charles Bracelen Flood will be an excellent choice.
Robin Friedman
December 26, 2018
This is an extraordinary book. The author does a superb job balancing Lincoln's day to day activities, the politics and elections of 1864, the ups and down of the Civil War and the multitude of personalities involved, all the while providing enough historical detail to put this momentous year in U.S. history in context and perspective. Not a simple task but again, the author succeeds in doing so brilliantly with this fascinating and engaging book.
If you're wondering if you really need one more Lincoln book on your bookshelf - you do. Make room for this one. The author may not provide anything "new" but he does provide a level of depth and detail that's missing in the books I've read on Lincoln, the Civil War and 1864. For instance this book brings more light to the 1864 Democratic Convention and the selection of ex-General George McClellan as the party's candidate as well as the related story of Clement Vallandigham, the peace at any price - meaning dissolution of the union - Democrat. There's also a very good narrative of Jubal Early's attempt to attack Washington, D.C., Chase's attempt to gain the Republican Presidential nomination and the desperation that gripped Lincoln during the summer of 1864.
And my favorite little anecdote, that of Henry Wing, injured veteran turned reporter who visited Grant during the Wilderness battles. After receiving stock answers to his questions from the general and his staff, Wing made ready to depart without much of a story. Grant followed Wing outside his tent and confirmed that Wing would be seeing Lincoln. As only Grant could he summed up the situation - "Tell the President," he said, "There will be no turning back." In six words Grant had redefined the war as well as validating Lincoln's decision of putting him in charge of the Union Army.
Highly recommended.
If you're wondering if you really need one more Lincoln book on your bookshelf - you do. Make room for this one. The author may not provide anything "new" but he does provide a level of depth and detail that's missing in the books I've read on Lincoln, the Civil War and 1864. For instance this book brings more light to the 1864 Democratic Convention and the selection of ex-General George McClellan as the party's candidate as well as the related story of Clement Vallandigham, the peace at any price - meaning dissolution of the union - Democrat. There's also a very good narrative of Jubal Early's attempt to attack Washington, D.C., Chase's attempt to gain the Republican Presidential nomination and the desperation that gripped Lincoln during the summer of 1864.
And my favorite little anecdote, that of Henry Wing, injured veteran turned reporter who visited Grant during the Wilderness battles. After receiving stock answers to his questions from the general and his staff, Wing made ready to depart without much of a story. Grant followed Wing outside his tent and confirmed that Wing would be seeing Lincoln. As only Grant could he summed up the situation - "Tell the President," he said, "There will be no turning back." In six words Grant had redefined the war as well as validating Lincoln's decision of putting him in charge of the Union Army.
Highly recommended.
January 27, 2016
This is a nonfiction book about the civil war times. It wasn't just about Abraham Lincoln. This felt well researched. I loved all the information because some of this was new to me. Who knew that Mary Todd Lincoln was a shopaholic and just charged it all to the government?!
I like history and I've always admired Abraham Lincoln, so for me, this was interesting and thorough. The civil war period was such a turbulent time that could have easily turned out the other way. So many things went wrong and people were tired of the war, but Lincoln managed to get elected another term. He was certainly beloved by the people.
I like history and I've always admired Abraham Lincoln, so for me, this was interesting and thorough. The civil war period was such a turbulent time that could have easily turned out the other way. So many things went wrong and people were tired of the war, but Lincoln managed to get elected another term. He was certainly beloved by the people.
May 25, 2009
Well, this has clearly been researched. At least, there are endnotes aplenty, but what kind of sources did Mr. Flood rely on? The copious and easily available contemporary documents like Lincoln's letters, and, even better, the plethora of personal notes in which Lincoln wrote down his thoughts and arguments all of his adult life? The letters and memoirs of all those, friends and enemies, who put their experiences to the pen? The volumes of extant editorials and reports on Lincoln in the nation's press? When one writes yet another Lincoln book, it behooves one to search source materials and not rely on books by unereliable authors still bent on showing the glory of Southern slave-holding society and the rightness of the war it started.
For instance, on p. 21, Mr. Flood recounts an absurd, obviously false set of events for which I can find no historical source. He claims that in Kentucky, during the 1862 elections, "Armed soldiers had stood at pollling places...there were threats of arrest for anyone running for office on a platform hostile to the Lincoln administration" and, on p. 22, the even more fantastic claim "Under Lincoln's authority, military commissions were bringing to trial protesters who opposed the war, many of them individuals who had done so only with words rather than deeds. More than 14,000 citizens had been jailed and tried using these highly unusual procedures.
Consider this latter claim first because of its patent absurdity and falseness. The President has authority over military courts only in pardoning, not in telling them whom to arrest and on what grounds. Moreover, military courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over civilians and have no power to try or jail them. Also, Lincoln was a highly criticized President. There were constant attacks on him in the Northern press with no evidence of intimidation by anyone on editors and reporters. People throughout the North complained about the war, wanted to give it up, and vocalized these opinions constantly, until the very end when the Union forces began to win. Constitutionally, everyone has the right to dissent and there is no historical source based upon contemporary sources which even hints of any infringement on this right. If Lincoln did try to curtail dissent, there would have been an outroar in the Northern press. There are books on the newspaper and magazine responses to Lincoln in his day, but as critical as they are, they do not accuse him of such a crime. Finally, given the small population of the states and territories in 1860, where would there have been jails for 14,000 prisoners? Where were they kept? What states? What prisons? Why is there no public record of such prisons or states which held such prisoners. The only political prisoner of the Lincoln years was Vlandingham, the Copperhead whom Lincoln banished to the Confederacy because Vlandingham exhorted soldiers to desert. And, as Lincoln said, if a soldier did desert, then it was Lincoln's sad job to decide if he would be shot as a deserter. So, Lincoln decided that Vlandingham should be the one to go -- and Vlandingham was never jailed.
As for the claim about Kentucky, as a Lincoln scholar, I know how obsessed Lincoln was with not angering that border state in any way. Furthermore Lincoln was obsessed with the Constitution and there was no Constitutional provision for ever calling out the military to prevent people from voting as they wished. Indeed, why would Lincoln call out the military only in one state? If he were going to do such a thing, why not all the states, especially the Midwestern ones which were hotbeds of Democrats, or the more populous states like New York, which also held many Democrats? There were four border states, Southern slave-holding states that stayed in the Union. Why would Kentucky be singled out?
Lincoln was so enamored and obsessed with the Constitution, that he promised all the slave-holding states that he would not interfere with slavery where the Constitution said it could exist. He was concerned only with its not spreading to the new territories. Even after Confederacy seized U.S. forts and arsenals, which were acts of war, and after they fired on Fort Sumter, Lincoln promised that if they came back into the Union, he would not abolish slavery, and he made that promise to all the border states who stayed in the United States. For that reason, when he finally issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he specifically did not free the slaves in the border states, only in those of the Confederacy because they were no longer protected by the Constitution. Lincoln has been roundly mocked and criticized for his exclusion of slaves in the border states, but he would not go against the Constitution even to free slaves.
Ifound this book highly unreliable, terrible history, but well-written.
For instance, on p. 21, Mr. Flood recounts an absurd, obviously false set of events for which I can find no historical source. He claims that in Kentucky, during the 1862 elections, "Armed soldiers had stood at pollling places...there were threats of arrest for anyone running for office on a platform hostile to the Lincoln administration" and, on p. 22, the even more fantastic claim "Under Lincoln's authority, military commissions were bringing to trial protesters who opposed the war, many of them individuals who had done so only with words rather than deeds. More than 14,000 citizens had been jailed and tried using these highly unusual procedures.
Consider this latter claim first because of its patent absurdity and falseness. The President has authority over military courts only in pardoning, not in telling them whom to arrest and on what grounds. Moreover, military courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over civilians and have no power to try or jail them. Also, Lincoln was a highly criticized President. There were constant attacks on him in the Northern press with no evidence of intimidation by anyone on editors and reporters. People throughout the North complained about the war, wanted to give it up, and vocalized these opinions constantly, until the very end when the Union forces began to win. Constitutionally, everyone has the right to dissent and there is no historical source based upon contemporary sources which even hints of any infringement on this right. If Lincoln did try to curtail dissent, there would have been an outroar in the Northern press. There are books on the newspaper and magazine responses to Lincoln in his day, but as critical as they are, they do not accuse him of such a crime. Finally, given the small population of the states and territories in 1860, where would there have been jails for 14,000 prisoners? Where were they kept? What states? What prisons? Why is there no public record of such prisons or states which held such prisoners. The only political prisoner of the Lincoln years was Vlandingham, the Copperhead whom Lincoln banished to the Confederacy because Vlandingham exhorted soldiers to desert. And, as Lincoln said, if a soldier did desert, then it was Lincoln's sad job to decide if he would be shot as a deserter. So, Lincoln decided that Vlandingham should be the one to go -- and Vlandingham was never jailed.
As for the claim about Kentucky, as a Lincoln scholar, I know how obsessed Lincoln was with not angering that border state in any way. Furthermore Lincoln was obsessed with the Constitution and there was no Constitutional provision for ever calling out the military to prevent people from voting as they wished. Indeed, why would Lincoln call out the military only in one state? If he were going to do such a thing, why not all the states, especially the Midwestern ones which were hotbeds of Democrats, or the more populous states like New York, which also held many Democrats? There were four border states, Southern slave-holding states that stayed in the Union. Why would Kentucky be singled out?
Lincoln was so enamored and obsessed with the Constitution, that he promised all the slave-holding states that he would not interfere with slavery where the Constitution said it could exist. He was concerned only with its not spreading to the new territories. Even after Confederacy seized U.S. forts and arsenals, which were acts of war, and after they fired on Fort Sumter, Lincoln promised that if they came back into the Union, he would not abolish slavery, and he made that promise to all the border states who stayed in the United States. For that reason, when he finally issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he specifically did not free the slaves in the border states, only in those of the Confederacy because they were no longer protected by the Constitution. Lincoln has been roundly mocked and criticized for his exclusion of slaves in the border states, but he would not go against the Constitution even to free slaves.
Ifound this book highly unreliable, terrible history, but well-written.
August 21, 2014
I was a little surprised to see Charles Bracelen Flood doing a book about Lincoln. I previously read one of his books, Lee: The Last Years, and I had the impression that he was a "Southern" historian. And, maybe he is. I see other reviewers have said that he doesn't seem to like Lincoln. A historian bringing up questionable practices on the part of a politician does not mean he doesn't like him. It means he wants us to see all sides of him, and not the usual fawning that we see.
I listened to this as I drove halfway across the country and it kept my interest. This doesn't always happen listening to a history book while driving. They can sometimes be quite dry. This wasn't. This held my interest pretty much throughout.
Not sure who the reader was but he didn't detract too much. Possibly gave different pronunciations to words than I was used to.
Not sure this book would meet the expectations of the casual reader or someone new to the Civil War and the politics. But fairly interesting to more knowledgeable readers. Not repetitive at all. He provided an explanation for why the place that nominated Lincoln was called The Wigwam, which I'd never heard before.
I listened to this as I drove halfway across the country and it kept my interest. This doesn't always happen listening to a history book while driving. They can sometimes be quite dry. This wasn't. This held my interest pretty much throughout.
Not sure who the reader was but he didn't detract too much. Possibly gave different pronunciations to words than I was used to.
Not sure this book would meet the expectations of the casual reader or someone new to the Civil War and the politics. But fairly interesting to more knowledgeable readers. Not repetitive at all. He provided an explanation for why the place that nominated Lincoln was called The Wigwam, which I'd never heard before.
Read
July 24, 2011The pragmatic politician, the visionary idealist, and the warm and earthy man are one in the same through this detailed rendering of Lincoln in the Civil War's last full year. As with the book 1776 by David McCullough, I was challenged to look closer at perilous events that could have easily turned into a much bigger disaster than the nation endured. This author is a master at putting 1864 in its place in larger history but getting close enough to the scenes and people that make it compelling.
May 27, 2012
Flood doesn't admire Lincoln. And I suspect he does not tell a fair tale. Nicely written with moments of extraordinary clarity (particularly battles), Flood nonetheless seems to suggests that Lincoln is not only not the perfect man mainstream history adores -- a perfectly legitimate view -- but rather a man content with scheming and at times shaky ethics. He works with innuendo, using language to raise questions about Lincoln's ethics, but never takes the topic on to prove, disprove or wrestle with the question.
A long time ago I learned that you can't give THE definitive history of anything from a single source, and my solution (as a non-scholar) was to read as many books as possible to get a variety of views, and try to find my own conclusions. You learn, along the way, that historians have points of view (it is not "Just the facts, ma'am"). Reading history should be as done as critical reading, much as reading a newspaper or a blog should be. I apologize because the point is obvious, but this book brought the lesson home.
In the first couple of pages, I thought Lincoln at the Gates might be useless as too adoring of its subject, but I quickly changed my mind. Nearly every description of the Lincoln's politics are cast in negative terms. He uses phrases like 'back room deals', and Lincoln 'manipulating' others. He describes politicking practices in a tone that encourages the modern reader to believe the Republicans of 1860 and 1864 were engaging in underhanded and unusual scheming, sort of sotto voce suggesting such things had never been practiced before or since. In pointing out that Lincoln did not act to stop some of the actually or marginally illegal or immoral actions of the operatives in the party, Flood seems to suggest that Lincoln approved or encouraged these action, but generally fails to prove the point. He gives the politics of the era no context beyond the war years. The innuendo is not blatant but is continuous. It is as though there is subtext in which Flood wants to point out that Lincoln was no saint, and leaned at time on the devil's door. What makes Lincoln so admirable is that he is a flawed human, working with what he had on hand to a single goal. He came to the job with with little experience and had his bumbles, but he grew. My, how he grew. Flood's insinuations and cavils pale. But some of his views are worth exploring and it would have been a better book if he had done so.
If I were a Lincoln scholar, I would want to dip back into the literature (which is endless) and the source documents to find out if the politics of the mid-19th century as described by Flood were in keeping with the sorts of actions common to the era, supporting my researches with as much balance as possible. But based on a lifetime of reading history and especially American history, it is impossible to avoid the fact that nasty scheming is as natural to politics through history (in America and everywhere else) as stump speeches and hanging the flag in a convention hall. [See Joseph Ellis, for example, on how Tom Jefferson paid writers to circulate lie-filled tracts to excoriate his enemies.] It would be impossible for Lincoln, or anyone else, to participate in national politics without having to play some hardball. I am aware of nothing that suggests the Lincoln was the source of or enthusiastic sponsor of some of the more distasteful actions Flood describes. He seems to fault Lincoln for keeping his cards close to his chest, allowing others (including his cabinet) to make assumptions about the president's view, rather than simply laying out a opinion and letting all and sundry take potshots. Lincoln seems to be quietly damned by Flood for doing what seems to me to be a masterful method of finding out the opinions of others and reserving the ability to, eventually, present a solution likely to be supported and to go more or less where Lincoln intended. Lincoln managed compromise. Flood manages to infer it is a sneaky approach.
Your mother already told you that the "everyone else is doing it" is no excuse for your bad behavior, and she's right. But your mother was trying to raise a good child. In the real world, politicians have to deal with what "everyone else is doing." They can't simply scorn it, they can't fully ignore it, and they can't survive without dealing with it. But for a fuller and more complete take on Lincoln as a politician, see Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals. Manipulative --you bet -- if by the word you mean influencing other's actions by not showing all of your cards at once, or allowing people to reach conclusions that will take them where you want them to go. Flood sees a man who is less than forthright and by implication, dishonest. Phooey. Lincoln was a politician and it is mind blowing naivete to think any president can not be a politician with ambition, and still reach and maintain the office. [See anything about James Buchanan for proof on the 'not maintain' argument.]
Lincoln's sole goal was to unify the country, to prove that a nation 'of the people, by the people and for the people' could in fact survive. Adam Goodheart [1861: The Civil War Awakening] writes an affecting account of Lincoln's first 'State of Union' address (1861) in which Lincoln first comprehensively provides the intellectual and philosophical basis for committing his country to the worst sort of war -- fratricide. His overriding motivation was not to end slavery, but he found that to end slavery was necessary to preserve the union. He had no reason to believe in the purest form of social equality. The people who did believe in social intermingling of the races in that century were the outliers, very rare and considered by most Americans of the time to be a little odd. Abolitionists didn't seem to think much about what would become of freed slaves--they would go somewhere else (Liberia or South America or out west someplace) or would keep to themselves but certainly not move in next door. Lincoln didn't have a solution either, but accepted, then embraced, the concept that slavery must end if America believed that all men were equal. [In fact, Lincoln's evolving view of slavery is a fascinating topic of its own: Eric Foner's book on the topic is on my to-read pile.] Lincoln's passion was unity. He could solve none of the problems of the nation if he did not first try to keep it a nation. His priority never changed.
To give Flood his due, his descriptions of battles are terrific, and I would enjoy his writing on the military history of the war if I were more confident that he would not be biased. He makes me want to read more about Sherman's march through Georgia and learn more of Sheridan. He also include lots of sidebar stories that are interesting but are spoiled, for me, by the thought they may not be complete or balanced. Flood is very unkind to Mary Todd Lincoln -- almost everyone is -- but her misadventures in this book seem to be beside the point, used more as a finger wag than to describe the scene or the facts. He seems to enjoy Lincoln's humor but seems to harrumph a little, encouraging the idea that it was often inappropriately used.
This is a readable book; Flood is a capable writer. But anyone interested in the Civil War and Lincoln should immediately sit down with other volumes -- and there are lots and lots -- for other points of view. David Herbert Donald's detail heavy tome Lincoln is good; the James MacPherson very short bio gets very good reviews (I haven't read it); MacPherson is a civil war expert and compelling writer. Don't let this be your only book on Lincoln and the war that changed America.
One more note: I thought quite a bit whether my admiration of Lincoln biased my reading of this book. It does. I would like to think that my tone might be different if I were not a fan, but the conclusions would be the same.
A long time ago I learned that you can't give THE definitive history of anything from a single source, and my solution (as a non-scholar) was to read as many books as possible to get a variety of views, and try to find my own conclusions. You learn, along the way, that historians have points of view (it is not "Just the facts, ma'am"). Reading history should be as done as critical reading, much as reading a newspaper or a blog should be. I apologize because the point is obvious, but this book brought the lesson home.
In the first couple of pages, I thought Lincoln at the Gates might be useless as too adoring of its subject, but I quickly changed my mind. Nearly every description of the Lincoln's politics are cast in negative terms. He uses phrases like 'back room deals', and Lincoln 'manipulating' others. He describes politicking practices in a tone that encourages the modern reader to believe the Republicans of 1860 and 1864 were engaging in underhanded and unusual scheming, sort of sotto voce suggesting such things had never been practiced before or since. In pointing out that Lincoln did not act to stop some of the actually or marginally illegal or immoral actions of the operatives in the party, Flood seems to suggest that Lincoln approved or encouraged these action, but generally fails to prove the point. He gives the politics of the era no context beyond the war years. The innuendo is not blatant but is continuous. It is as though there is subtext in which Flood wants to point out that Lincoln was no saint, and leaned at time on the devil's door. What makes Lincoln so admirable is that he is a flawed human, working with what he had on hand to a single goal. He came to the job with with little experience and had his bumbles, but he grew. My, how he grew. Flood's insinuations and cavils pale. But some of his views are worth exploring and it would have been a better book if he had done so.
If I were a Lincoln scholar, I would want to dip back into the literature (which is endless) and the source documents to find out if the politics of the mid-19th century as described by Flood were in keeping with the sorts of actions common to the era, supporting my researches with as much balance as possible. But based on a lifetime of reading history and especially American history, it is impossible to avoid the fact that nasty scheming is as natural to politics through history (in America and everywhere else) as stump speeches and hanging the flag in a convention hall. [See Joseph Ellis, for example, on how Tom Jefferson paid writers to circulate lie-filled tracts to excoriate his enemies.] It would be impossible for Lincoln, or anyone else, to participate in national politics without having to play some hardball. I am aware of nothing that suggests the Lincoln was the source of or enthusiastic sponsor of some of the more distasteful actions Flood describes. He seems to fault Lincoln for keeping his cards close to his chest, allowing others (including his cabinet) to make assumptions about the president's view, rather than simply laying out a opinion and letting all and sundry take potshots. Lincoln seems to be quietly damned by Flood for doing what seems to me to be a masterful method of finding out the opinions of others and reserving the ability to, eventually, present a solution likely to be supported and to go more or less where Lincoln intended. Lincoln managed compromise. Flood manages to infer it is a sneaky approach.
Your mother already told you that the "everyone else is doing it" is no excuse for your bad behavior, and she's right. But your mother was trying to raise a good child. In the real world, politicians have to deal with what "everyone else is doing." They can't simply scorn it, they can't fully ignore it, and they can't survive without dealing with it. But for a fuller and more complete take on Lincoln as a politician, see Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals. Manipulative --you bet -- if by the word you mean influencing other's actions by not showing all of your cards at once, or allowing people to reach conclusions that will take them where you want them to go. Flood sees a man who is less than forthright and by implication, dishonest. Phooey. Lincoln was a politician and it is mind blowing naivete to think any president can not be a politician with ambition, and still reach and maintain the office. [See anything about James Buchanan for proof on the 'not maintain' argument.]
Lincoln's sole goal was to unify the country, to prove that a nation 'of the people, by the people and for the people' could in fact survive. Adam Goodheart [1861: The Civil War Awakening] writes an affecting account of Lincoln's first 'State of Union' address (1861) in which Lincoln first comprehensively provides the intellectual and philosophical basis for committing his country to the worst sort of war -- fratricide. His overriding motivation was not to end slavery, but he found that to end slavery was necessary to preserve the union. He had no reason to believe in the purest form of social equality. The people who did believe in social intermingling of the races in that century were the outliers, very rare and considered by most Americans of the time to be a little odd. Abolitionists didn't seem to think much about what would become of freed slaves--they would go somewhere else (Liberia or South America or out west someplace) or would keep to themselves but certainly not move in next door. Lincoln didn't have a solution either, but accepted, then embraced, the concept that slavery must end if America believed that all men were equal. [In fact, Lincoln's evolving view of slavery is a fascinating topic of its own: Eric Foner's book on the topic is on my to-read pile.] Lincoln's passion was unity. He could solve none of the problems of the nation if he did not first try to keep it a nation. His priority never changed.
To give Flood his due, his descriptions of battles are terrific, and I would enjoy his writing on the military history of the war if I were more confident that he would not be biased. He makes me want to read more about Sherman's march through Georgia and learn more of Sheridan. He also include lots of sidebar stories that are interesting but are spoiled, for me, by the thought they may not be complete or balanced. Flood is very unkind to Mary Todd Lincoln -- almost everyone is -- but her misadventures in this book seem to be beside the point, used more as a finger wag than to describe the scene or the facts. He seems to enjoy Lincoln's humor but seems to harrumph a little, encouraging the idea that it was often inappropriately used.
This is a readable book; Flood is a capable writer. But anyone interested in the Civil War and Lincoln should immediately sit down with other volumes -- and there are lots and lots -- for other points of view. David Herbert Donald's detail heavy tome Lincoln is good; the James MacPherson very short bio gets very good reviews (I haven't read it); MacPherson is a civil war expert and compelling writer. Don't let this be your only book on Lincoln and the war that changed America.
One more note: I thought quite a bit whether my admiration of Lincoln biased my reading of this book. It does. I would like to think that my tone might be different if I were not a fan, but the conclusions would be the same.
July 30, 2020
A serious, detailed account of the last year of Lincoln and the Civil War.
June 8, 2023
I love civil war history. This was well researched and well written, giving the reader a glimpse behind the scenes into the personalities and the politics driving decisions made near the end of the war. What a burden Pres Lincoln bore in leading our nation during that period of upheaval!
February 20, 2017
Thorough and monumental. A few points that impressed me:
1. The Civil War could have easily gone another way. Remember, the war ended in April of 1865. As late as the summer of 1864, the direction of the war still favored the South, which was able to inflict a string of stinging defeats on its Northern aggressors. In June, Lee's army withstood Grant's disastrous assault at Cold Harbor; the Union Army failed in its attempt to take Petersburg, a crucial step in its push to the capital at Richmond; and Sherman was repulsed at Kennesaw Mountain in Georgia. In July, the Confederate Army under Jubal Early destroyed the outskirts of Washington, D.C., and, had Jubal arrived one day earlier, could have continued on to overrun the capital itself. Later in July, Burnside's federal forces literally blew a hole in the South's lines around Petersburg, but failed to follow through on what should have been an overwhelming victory; instead, his disorganized troops were mowed down in the very crater left by the explosion. Day by day the prospects of Lincoln's reelection waned, and by the end of the summer virtually everyone in Washington and throughout the nation expected a decisive Republican defeat and a subsequent end to the war in terms that would recognize the legitimacy of the Confederacy. The North desperately needed a victory to revive the hopes that had first flourished during the beginning of Grant's campaign. Only then would the Republicans have a shot at the 1864 election and the chance to preserve the union.
2. The Northwestern Conspiracy. Throughout the duration of the war there was an ongoing Confederate plot for escaped rebel soldiers to infiltrate the capitals of a number of northwestern states and to stage simultaneous coups to overthrow the state governments. The states would then secede from the Union and create a northwestern Confederacy. This conspiracy had existed for some time, but it gained new momentum in autumn of 1864. The plan was to capture the sole gun boat in the Great Lakes, to use it to attack a federal prison on Lake Eerie, to free the Confederate prisoners held there, and then proceed to the capitals of Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Kansas.
3. Six words that changed everything. The single most important pivot in the war came on September 2, 1864, with Sherman's telegram to Washington: "Atlanta is ours, and fairly won." This was precisely the major breakthrough victory the North had desperately needed. It was quickly followed by Sheridan's destruction of the Confederate Army of the Shenandoah Valley, turning the war from its focus in Virginia to the heart of the Confederacy. Sherman would go on to march from Altanta to Savannah, destroying everything in his path, and Lincoln would go on to (spoiler alert) win the 1864 election. Speaking of which:
4. The election. Lincoln's reelection, which in the summer of 1864 had seemed impossible, turned out to be a clear victory. This was partly due to missteps by the rival Democratic party, which had adopted a seemingly-defeatist peace platform at its summer convention while nominating a war Democrat (George B. McClellan). But what ultimately saved Lincoln was the North's turn of military fortune, led by Sherman and Sheridan in the Deep South. The popular vote favored Lincoln with 2.2 million votes against McClellan's 1.8, but in the electoral vote Lincoln crushed his rival 212-21.
5. Lincoln's personal safety. Lincoln was in immediate danger during his time in office more than any other President. When Washington, D.C. was threatened by Jubal Early's army, Lincoln insisted on being present at Fort Stevens, prowling the parapets in his trademark stovepipe hat. Sharpshooters fired at him at least once. According to one account, future SCOTUS justice Oliver Wendell Holmes yelled, "Get down, you fool!" at the President. According to another, Lincoln was sitting on a wooden crate when a bullet narrowly missed him, ricocheting off a cannon and striking a nearby soldier in the arm. On another occasion, Lincoln was riding alone at night when a gun was fired nearby; upon arriving at home he found a bullet-hole in his hat.
6. The Crater Battle. The most entertaining account in the book was the story of the Battle of the Crater. The Union had been trying for months to penetrate the Confederate lines protecting Petersburg, the gateway to Richmond. Finally, the North settled on an expensive and dangerous plan. They tunneled deep under Confederate armaments and loaded 4000 tons of dynamite directly under the heavily fortified rebel line. On the appointed morning, the fuse was lit, but hours passed with no explosion. The Union officers recruited two volunteers to follow the fuse into the tunnel to see what had happened. These two men found that the fuse had gone out 60 feet from the pile of dynamite. They then chose to relight the fuse and run 400 yards out of the tunnel before the explosion collapsed it. The blast created an enormous crater in the middle of the Confederate line, blowing men, cannons, equipment, and earth sky-high. The surprise ought to have led to an easy Union victory, but poor management led to federal forces pooling into the crater without an outlet. The Confederates quickly regrouped and managed to successfully defend the upper edge, while the crater below became a pile of dead Union soldiers. No significant Union advantage was gained through this battle.
1. The Civil War could have easily gone another way. Remember, the war ended in April of 1865. As late as the summer of 1864, the direction of the war still favored the South, which was able to inflict a string of stinging defeats on its Northern aggressors. In June, Lee's army withstood Grant's disastrous assault at Cold Harbor; the Union Army failed in its attempt to take Petersburg, a crucial step in its push to the capital at Richmond; and Sherman was repulsed at Kennesaw Mountain in Georgia. In July, the Confederate Army under Jubal Early destroyed the outskirts of Washington, D.C., and, had Jubal arrived one day earlier, could have continued on to overrun the capital itself. Later in July, Burnside's federal forces literally blew a hole in the South's lines around Petersburg, but failed to follow through on what should have been an overwhelming victory; instead, his disorganized troops were mowed down in the very crater left by the explosion. Day by day the prospects of Lincoln's reelection waned, and by the end of the summer virtually everyone in Washington and throughout the nation expected a decisive Republican defeat and a subsequent end to the war in terms that would recognize the legitimacy of the Confederacy. The North desperately needed a victory to revive the hopes that had first flourished during the beginning of Grant's campaign. Only then would the Republicans have a shot at the 1864 election and the chance to preserve the union.
2. The Northwestern Conspiracy. Throughout the duration of the war there was an ongoing Confederate plot for escaped rebel soldiers to infiltrate the capitals of a number of northwestern states and to stage simultaneous coups to overthrow the state governments. The states would then secede from the Union and create a northwestern Confederacy. This conspiracy had existed for some time, but it gained new momentum in autumn of 1864. The plan was to capture the sole gun boat in the Great Lakes, to use it to attack a federal prison on Lake Eerie, to free the Confederate prisoners held there, and then proceed to the capitals of Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Kansas.
3. Six words that changed everything. The single most important pivot in the war came on September 2, 1864, with Sherman's telegram to Washington: "Atlanta is ours, and fairly won." This was precisely the major breakthrough victory the North had desperately needed. It was quickly followed by Sheridan's destruction of the Confederate Army of the Shenandoah Valley, turning the war from its focus in Virginia to the heart of the Confederacy. Sherman would go on to march from Altanta to Savannah, destroying everything in his path, and Lincoln would go on to (spoiler alert) win the 1864 election. Speaking of which:
4. The election. Lincoln's reelection, which in the summer of 1864 had seemed impossible, turned out to be a clear victory. This was partly due to missteps by the rival Democratic party, which had adopted a seemingly-defeatist peace platform at its summer convention while nominating a war Democrat (George B. McClellan). But what ultimately saved Lincoln was the North's turn of military fortune, led by Sherman and Sheridan in the Deep South. The popular vote favored Lincoln with 2.2 million votes against McClellan's 1.8, but in the electoral vote Lincoln crushed his rival 212-21.
5. Lincoln's personal safety. Lincoln was in immediate danger during his time in office more than any other President. When Washington, D.C. was threatened by Jubal Early's army, Lincoln insisted on being present at Fort Stevens, prowling the parapets in his trademark stovepipe hat. Sharpshooters fired at him at least once. According to one account, future SCOTUS justice Oliver Wendell Holmes yelled, "Get down, you fool!" at the President. According to another, Lincoln was sitting on a wooden crate when a bullet narrowly missed him, ricocheting off a cannon and striking a nearby soldier in the arm. On another occasion, Lincoln was riding alone at night when a gun was fired nearby; upon arriving at home he found a bullet-hole in his hat.
6. The Crater Battle. The most entertaining account in the book was the story of the Battle of the Crater. The Union had been trying for months to penetrate the Confederate lines protecting Petersburg, the gateway to Richmond. Finally, the North settled on an expensive and dangerous plan. They tunneled deep under Confederate armaments and loaded 4000 tons of dynamite directly under the heavily fortified rebel line. On the appointed morning, the fuse was lit, but hours passed with no explosion. The Union officers recruited two volunteers to follow the fuse into the tunnel to see what had happened. These two men found that the fuse had gone out 60 feet from the pile of dynamite. They then chose to relight the fuse and run 400 yards out of the tunnel before the explosion collapsed it. The blast created an enormous crater in the middle of the Confederate line, blowing men, cannons, equipment, and earth sky-high. The surprise ought to have led to an easy Union victory, but poor management led to federal forces pooling into the crater without an outlet. The Confederates quickly regrouped and managed to successfully defend the upper edge, while the crater below became a pile of dead Union soldiers. No significant Union advantage was gained through this battle.
April 12, 2017
In a wonderful wealth of detail, we get a revealing portrait of Abraham Lincoln as president, uncertain of the upcoming election, facing challenges of every description from answering letters of citizens to coping with power plays and connivance within his own cabinet. Don't miss this one.
May 23, 2010
Enlightening and inspirational.
January 3, 2024
Charles Bracelen Flood is a master storyteller, but he has outdone even himself with this one. If I could give it six stars—or ten—I would. His meticulous research is transformed by a transfixing prose that transposes the reader into the year 1864 as President Lincoln lived it with daily anguish. Abe was not the perfect man that his idolators would like to believe, nor was he the villain that his detractors despised then and continue to denigrate now. He was so very, very human, with unattractive faults to offset his fundamental decency. And he was humble enough to recognize himself as imperfect. Fortunately for his nation, he was also courageous enough to maintain his determination to save that nation at whatever cost was required.
In this third year of his presidency, he was exhausted with worry, but he remained a constant thinker. Perhaps his difficulty with choosing individuals to help with the great cause of winning both the actual war and the ideological war over the subjects of slavery and restoring the national unity was his wish to believe in the goodness of others. As absorbed as he was with official duties, he apparently spent an astonishing amount of time listening to a never-ending line of “ordinary” people who came to the White House asking favors. Through them he heard the public voice, often different from the news editors of the most prominent papers he also read. He listened to the members of his Cabinet, who often disagreed with each other. He listened to the Union military officers, only recently, in late 1863, having elevated the more reliable generals of Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and several others. And as 1864 progressed, he had to worry about the political question of a November presidential re-election, which for a time appeared unlikely. It could not have helped that his wife rather selfishly misjudged the priorities of her own role.
But he accepted what he felt was his duty to save the Union. He composed eloquent—and ultimately immortal—speeches in effort to persuade the people he saw himself serving. His self-education about the American Constitution and lessons from the Bible secured his belief in staying the course through war and political debate, until the nation was reunited, and the practice of slavery within it was abolished. Many other operators who surrounded Lincoln during this critical year of 1864 are amply described by the author of this book. But I am left believing that without this single man of Abraham Lincoln at the helm, the nation could well have failed.
Thank you, Charles Bracelen Flood, for your empathetic story.
In this third year of his presidency, he was exhausted with worry, but he remained a constant thinker. Perhaps his difficulty with choosing individuals to help with the great cause of winning both the actual war and the ideological war over the subjects of slavery and restoring the national unity was his wish to believe in the goodness of others. As absorbed as he was with official duties, he apparently spent an astonishing amount of time listening to a never-ending line of “ordinary” people who came to the White House asking favors. Through them he heard the public voice, often different from the news editors of the most prominent papers he also read. He listened to the members of his Cabinet, who often disagreed with each other. He listened to the Union military officers, only recently, in late 1863, having elevated the more reliable generals of Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and several others. And as 1864 progressed, he had to worry about the political question of a November presidential re-election, which for a time appeared unlikely. It could not have helped that his wife rather selfishly misjudged the priorities of her own role.
But he accepted what he felt was his duty to save the Union. He composed eloquent—and ultimately immortal—speeches in effort to persuade the people he saw himself serving. His self-education about the American Constitution and lessons from the Bible secured his belief in staying the course through war and political debate, until the nation was reunited, and the practice of slavery within it was abolished. Many other operators who surrounded Lincoln during this critical year of 1864 are amply described by the author of this book. But I am left believing that without this single man of Abraham Lincoln at the helm, the nation could well have failed.
Thank you, Charles Bracelen Flood, for your empathetic story.
February 8, 2025
As a lover of early American history and a Civil War buff, I downloaded 1864: Lincoln at the Gates of History by Charles Bracelen Flood. This is an account of the last year of Lincoln's presidency as the war dragged on, he faced a re-election campaign challenged by a member of his cabinet seeking the Republican nomination, peace talks appeared to be on the horizon that would leave the Confederacy a separate slave-holding American nation, and threats to his life increased.
Originally published in 2009, this well-written and thoroughly researched account clocks in at just under 20 hours of audio. Flood dives deep into this last year of Lincoln's presidency, exposing his challenges, exploring his triumphs, sharing thoughts and concerns from Mary Lincoln and members of his cabinet, and accounts from the battlefield. Thanks to Flood's in-depth look into Lincoln as president and person, along with narrator Mel Foster's superb delivery, readers come to know Lincoln during that time on a deeper level. I found myself going back to re-listen to certain passages, because I didn't want to miss a minute of what was being said.
Lovers of early American history, Civil War and Lincoln buffs, and those who appreciate military and political accounts will want to read 1864: Lincoln at the Gates of History.
Originally published in 2009, this well-written and thoroughly researched account clocks in at just under 20 hours of audio. Flood dives deep into this last year of Lincoln's presidency, exposing his challenges, exploring his triumphs, sharing thoughts and concerns from Mary Lincoln and members of his cabinet, and accounts from the battlefield. Thanks to Flood's in-depth look into Lincoln as president and person, along with narrator Mel Foster's superb delivery, readers come to know Lincoln during that time on a deeper level. I found myself going back to re-listen to certain passages, because I didn't want to miss a minute of what was being said.
Lovers of early American history, Civil War and Lincoln buffs, and those who appreciate military and political accounts will want to read 1864: Lincoln at the Gates of History.
April 2, 2025
This book may have been edited for grammar, style, flow, etc., but it was not edited for factual accuracy. Starting in Chapter 1, here are two examples:
"For the first time since 1785, when George Washington began the custom of have these New Year's gatherings when New York City was the nation's capital..." The actual date was 1790.
Referring to the death of Lincoln's second child: "...in 1849, seven years after they married, their three-year-old son Eddie had died of tuberculosis at their home in Springfield." Eddie died on February 4, 1850. Some history books display a photograph of Eddie's tombstone with the date clearly visible.
Also, some of the emphasis or the evaluation of the importance of well-known events in 1864 is at odds with many other authors. For example, the book treats Farragut's capture of Mobile Bay as having limited significance to the Union war effort and to Lincoln's reelection. Most authors rank this victory as one of the three most significant to Lincoln's reelection along with Sheridan clearing the Shenandoah Valley and Sherman taking Atlanta. Farragut closed the last large, deep water port in the Confederacy.
Despite my interest in the civil war and presidential elections in general, I was not able to finish reading this book.
"For the first time since 1785, when George Washington began the custom of have these New Year's gatherings when New York City was the nation's capital..." The actual date was 1790.
Referring to the death of Lincoln's second child: "...in 1849, seven years after they married, their three-year-old son Eddie had died of tuberculosis at their home in Springfield." Eddie died on February 4, 1850. Some history books display a photograph of Eddie's tombstone with the date clearly visible.
Also, some of the emphasis or the evaluation of the importance of well-known events in 1864 is at odds with many other authors. For example, the book treats Farragut's capture of Mobile Bay as having limited significance to the Union war effort and to Lincoln's reelection. Most authors rank this victory as one of the three most significant to Lincoln's reelection along with Sheridan clearing the Shenandoah Valley and Sherman taking Atlanta. Farragut closed the last large, deep water port in the Confederacy.
Despite my interest in the civil war and presidential elections in general, I was not able to finish reading this book.
November 2, 2024
I have read many Civil War era books yet this book by Flood sheds some new light on the events of 1864. Flood covers 1864 week by week and at times day by day with new anecdotal stories that makes events come alive. The author uses a wealth of personal observations from letters, diaries, memos/notes, and memoirs. This provides a personal side to the events taking place in 1864 and adds drama in knowing what was going on behind the scenes. Certainly Abe Lincoln comes through as a real person with strengths and weaknesses in the most difficult time in this nations’ history. 1864 was a unique year as there was a presidential election during war threatening the future course of the nation. Flood is a master at weaving in and out of the Civil War battles and the political presidential campaign taking place. A very good read.
January 27, 2020
Well written, detailed, and informative history of the final year of both the Civil War as well as the life of Abraham Lincoln. The book is not only a good biography of Lincoln's last year, it is also a good history of the final year of the Civil War. It does a good job of describing Lincoln's relationships with his main generals and his cabinet members, most notably Grant, Sherman, McClellan, Stanton, and Chase. In 1864 it was unclear whether or not Lincoln would even be nominated to run again, let alone be re-elected. It was pretty much Sherman's march to and capture of Atlanta that turned the tied and allowed Lincoln to regain the Presidency and eventually end the Civil War. Those of you who enjoy history, especially about Lincoln and the Civil War will enjoy this book.
February 4, 2020
I learned so much about Lincoln by reading this book! I knew the basics: a President who was assassinated, considered to have great integrity, and was a self-taught lawyer from Illinois. This book takes the last year of his life and fleshes it out in great detail. Lincoln's presidency was not without controversy; he greatly feared that he would not be nominated for a second term. Like so many politicians, he practices nepotism and the giving of appointments to political friends. Throughout the book, one of the over-arching themes is how much he hated war yet felt it had to be fought to keep the Union together. Another theme was his integrity (too bad that's not in vogue these days).
I highly recommend this book.
I highly recommend this book.
October 31, 2017
How do you measure a man? Whether it is by 140 characters or small instances, stories or memoirs an individuals life is intricate, if not more so, as the world we live in today.
Though it is easy to think that the days of Abraham Lincoln were somehow easier than ours, the battles he fought were as real as the ones we fight today and his struggles through them will help the reader with their own and perhaps we can all take a few notes from the Illinois lawyer: stand a little taller and be a little more forgiving.
Spoiler: Lincoln died at the end.
Though it is easy to think that the days of Abraham Lincoln were somehow easier than ours, the battles he fought were as real as the ones we fight today and his struggles through them will help the reader with their own and perhaps we can all take a few notes from the Illinois lawyer: stand a little taller and be a little more forgiving.
Spoiler: Lincoln died at the end.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 6, 2019
This was a very well written book. The idea is basic, but in Flood's hands, compelling: follow Lincoln through 1864. Flood's gift is finding the human interest moment in the rush of events, displaying a unique ability to find the scene that humanizes both Lincoln and that momentous year.
Read
February 4, 2020I enjoyed the detailed, almost day by day, account of this pivotal year. Flood covers both Lincoln’s political activities as well as details of the war events and the intermeshing of the two.
I would certainly read another book by him.
I would certainly read another book by him.
July 3, 2023
Excellent! So much history and “behind the scenes” information that it seemed like I was drawn into the events going on at the time. I loved every minute of this book. Very well written! This was recommended to me by a friend, and I’m so glad I read it. I definitely highly recommend it.
July 1, 2017
I thought it was good and interesting but drug on much too long
October 25, 2017
written like a fanzine but I guess I'm a fan.
February 23, 2020
NICE BOOK.
September 26, 2020
Much the same as others have written. Meh
August 31, 2021
Filled with lovely anecdotes and a touching rendering of the man at the darkest time of the war, however the history is somewhat generalized.
June 19, 2023
Abraham Lincoln was my favorite president. Almost everything Lincoln is something I'm interested in.
July 5, 2023
Flood's scholarship and writing style combine to form not only a groundbreaking work on Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, but a highly-captivating one as well.
August 24, 2025
Interesting history of Lincoln and saving the Union. Descriptions of Civil War battles and death / indescribable. Such bravery. And Lincoln - what a great man.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews