The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery by Eric Foner

Mar 12, 2011 Clif Hostetler rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history

This book is a study of American slavery and the political events that shaped Lincoln's attitude toward it. Conventional wisdom would indicate that Abraham Lincoln, known as the Great Emancipator, would also be an advocate of equal rights and racial integration. It turns out that the historical reality is a bit more complicated than that. The journey from the antebellum years, through the Civil War and into the Reconstruction era witnessed a long slow shift of public opinion in the midst of a wi...more

12 likes · like · see review

Mar 17, 2011 Eric rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: americans, history, us-civil-war, war

Antebellum America has a certain dystopian fascination. Colorblind civic nationality and a multiracial citizenry weren’t unfulfilled promises—they weren’t even promised. With his characteristic command of the era’s ideological texture, Foner transports readers of The Fiery Trial back to the 1850s, where some senators think the Declaration of Independence a subversive document. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court declares that blacks have no rights a white man is bound to respect. Northerners...more

12 likes · like · see review

May 08, 2012 Frank Stein rated it 5 of 5 stars

Much like before starting and loving Garry Wills's "Lincoln at Gettysburg," I stated before that I had permanently sworn off all future Lincoln books. Yet once again I couldn't resist, and again I was more than pleasantly surprised. I keep thinking there couldn't be anymore to say on the topic, and then someone goes and proves me wrong.

This book may seem even more redundant on first glance, because what else has defined Lincoln more than his battle against slavery? Strangely enough, though, no o...more
Much like before starting and loving Garry Wills's "Lincoln at Gettysburg," I stated before that I had permanently sworn off all future Lincoln books. Yet once again I couldn't resist, and again I was more than pleasantly surprised. I keep thinking there couldn't be anymore to say on the topic, and then someone goes and proves me wrong.

This book may seem even more redundant on first glance, because what else has defined Lincoln more than his battle against slavery? Strangely enough, though, no one else has built a whole book around this obvious topic, and Foner uses this expansive view to show Lincoln's myriad nuances on the issue in a new light.

The first part of the book gives important background on the world of slavery in Lincoln's Indiana and Illinois, both of which were nominally free states. Yet the right to move slaves through the states often translated into retaining them for extended periods while there. As late as 1840, the census counted at least 331 slaves in Illinois. Antislavery forces had to battle a change in the constitution to make slavery completely legal in the state. They won, barely, but by 1853 Illinois had succeeded in banning all free blacks from even entering Illinois. Foner shows that the "free" states where Lincoln strove against slavery were at best only half-free, and that, if anything, they were becoming more slavery-dominated as time went on.

The most important part of the book, however, is Foner's demonstration of slavery's impact on Lincoln's conduct of the Civil War. Even people who know a fair amount about slavery and the war may have heard only about the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment, but Foner shows the debate over slavery was constant. From liberating slaves in the territories, to enacting compensated emancipation in DC in 1862, to freeing the wives of former slave soldiers in 1865, every year brought fresh battles over how to bring about gradual or total emancipation. Foner shows Lincoln's hand in all of this, as well as his surprising and continuing belief in colonization (as late as 1863 he tried to buy a Carribean island for emancipated slaves, and also discusses plans for colonizing Panama with all of them).

So there is much surprising here even for well-read fans of Lincoln and for students of the Civil War. This book's Pulitzer and Bancroft prizes prove that the topic is far from being exhausted.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Apr 30, 2013 ***Dave Hill rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Those with an interest in American History, the Civil War, Black History, Labor History, Presidents

Shelves: audiobook, non-fiction, text

This is a fine, deeply interesting book about Abraham Lincoln's thoughts, writings, speeches, and actions on the subject of slavery and, by extension, the role of the black population in the United States.

While Lincoln is known to history as the Great Emancipator, and the leader of the Union in the Civil War to defeat free the slaves, the reality is much more complex. As with the American population as a whole, and even those people who belonged to the new Republican Party, Lincoln's attitudes o...more This is a fine, deeply interesting book about Abraham Lincoln's thoughts, writings, speeches, and actions on the subject of slavery and, by extension, the role of the black population in the United States.

While Lincoln is known to history as the Great Emancipator, and the leader of the Union in the Civil War to defeat free the slaves, the reality is much more complex. As with the American population as a whole, and even those people who belonged to the new Republican Party, Lincoln's attitudes on these subjects were complex, nuanced, and evolved significantly over time. Lincoln seems to have always detested slavery as an institution, but initially largely because of how it devalued free labor, and, secondarily, as a broadly degrading harm to the nation in violation of the basic, lofty principles in the Declaration of Independence.

But he had little engagement with or personal sympathy for, beyond the abstract, the slaves themselves. To the extent he thought of them, he thought it best that blacks be colonized elsewhere after slavery was ended, whether back to Africa or to somewhere in Central or South America. Certainly, though he supported their basic rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (translated as being able to benefit from their own labor), he did not see them, in his early years, as being equals within the nation or worthy of social and full civil rights. He also, again from that business/labor/economy perspective, was strongly in favor of gradual (to avoid economic disruption), and compensated emancipation (slaves were the largest aggregate property value in the US, certainly in the South, and Lincoln was cognizant of constitutional restrictions on "takings" by the federal government).

These attitudes deepened and swelled over the years, up to and into his presidency (he was proposing compensated emancipation well into the last few years of the Civil War, particularly for the still-loyal border states). But the military needs and events of the War, pressure from the Radical Republicans, intransigence from the Democrats and the Confederacy, all served to push Lincoln into a more abolitionist stance as a moral as well as pragmatic priority. While the Emancipation Proclamation was driven in part by previous military actions to recognize the South's slaves value as war material, and the dedication of the war effort to the abolition of slavery was at least somewhat Lincoln riding and fomenting the groundswell opinion of the North, Lincoln was in fact becoming more opposed to slavery on a personal and moral basis. This came about as Lincoln actually met and engaged with blacks, from newly admitted Northern troops, to freed slaves, to Northern luminaries such as Frederick Douglass. While always cognizant of the issues of winning the war and reintegrating the South into the Union, the slavery issue and how to actually integrate the freed black population into the nation he recognized they belonged to became more of a driver for Lincoln during the course of the War. Yet even then, he tended to prefer a middle course, lambasting conservative or bigoted military commanders on the one hand, but reining in more radical/liberal ones who threatened to go too far in abolitionist activities on the front lines. Always cognizant of Northern public opinion and the need to tread easily with the border states, he did not take many bold strokes except when he felt forced to, but those he did helped cement his reputation for the century and more to follow.

The book delves into all these aspects in remarkable detail, panting a much richer and more complex picture of Lincoln than either the traditionalist or revisionist historical traditions have allowed for.

If I have one criticism of Foner's work, it's with the organization. While there is a vague forward sense of time, he digresses into thematic discussions that frequently bounce back and forth over several years. Even as the war advances we digress time and again to its early years and then its later ones in pursuit of particular threads. While this is intended highlight Lincoln's evolution and provide precedent and context, it makes the overall narrative a bit muddled in places.

The audiobook is narrated by Norman Dietz, who does a good job of expressively telling the tale and giving a voice to Lincoln (though no other characters) that is distinctive without feeling out of place. My only critique here is that there are frequent, clear breaks in the narration in which volume levels and the quality or intonation of Dietz' voice can vary significantly. It wasn't a fatal flaw, but it was a more-than-occasional distraction.

Overall, I would highly recommend this book. I've read a number of Lincoln biographies, and the focus in this one on the slavery issue is both useful (as a way to break stereotypes about Lincoln) and thorough.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Mar 04, 2013 Brendan rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is a book about Lincoln's evolving view on slavery. It focuses mainly on his time in public office, and it relies almost exclusively on published speeches and newspaper reports of the time. I don't think there is anything especially surprising here--Lincoln was definitely a politician of what we would now call the the "center left", and his political position at any given time tended to reflect something like the left-most plausible position. It's a good antidote to two sorts of histories,...more

like · see review

Jan 16, 2013 Socraticgadfly marked it as to-read

Shelves: biography, history

A great book by a dean of Civil War historians, which tries and generally does well to get at the bottom of "who was Lincoln," especially vis-a-vis both slavery and black civil rights/race issues?

Was he a Lincoln who remained a racist at heart? OR close to that, only grudgingly being drug to his positions? Was he a beknighted crusader? Was he, as William Lee Miller claims, a man willingly buffeted by events? Or was he the ever-evolving (for the good) Lincoln of pop history consensus?

Foner starts...more A great book by a dean of Civil War historians, which tries and generally does well to get at the bottom of "who was Lincoln," especially vis-a-vis both slavery and black civil rights/race issues?

Was he a Lincoln who remained a racist at heart? OR close to that, only grudgingly being drug to his positions? Was he a beknighted crusader? Was he, as William Lee Miller claims, a man willingly buffeted by events? Or was he the ever-evolving (for the good) Lincoln of pop history consensus?

Foner starts by saying this last, if not quite right, is the best starting point.

He then carefully looks at both of the main issues above, disentangling them wherever possible.

Starting with the first and second Confiscation Acts, Foner shows that, on the end of slavery, Lincoln generally acted fairly boldly whenever such action would be consonant with the goal of saving the union.

On civil rights and race issues? Foner presents an image of a generally evolving Lincoln, but one not that close to the radicals.

This, of course, impacts the old hypothetical: "How would Lincoln have done Reconstruction"? Without going into too much detail, Foner gives us a Lincoln who would have acted more surely and firmly than Andrew Johnson, and in better harmony with various wings of Congressional Republicans.

That said, Foner may give Lincoln too much of a pass on the colonization issue. A recent New York Times column raises a claim by Ben Butler that he and Lincoln discussed this issue just days before Lincoln's assassination. I know that Foner knows about the claim, but he nowhere discusses it in the book.

Finally, Foner looks a bit at Lincoln's "free soil and free labor" ideas. He notes that this was NOT the same as supporting labor unions, etc., contra some modern liberals who want to poke into the collective eyeballs of today's GOP with a claim like that.

Rather, without exactly stating this himself, Foner makes it clear that Lincoln's "free labor" was a small shopkeepers, small artisans, small professionals version of Jeffersonian yeoman farmers. If he had lived, how Lincoln the corporate railroad lawyer would have squared this with an ever-more-industrializing postwar North (an issue that did help fracture the GOP in 1872) is definitely one to ponder.(less)

like · see review

Aug 16, 2012 Armand rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I listened to this audiobook while driving from Seattle to New Orleans. The book isn’t nearly that long, but I rocked out on the drive considerably more than I had planned. Although I am embarrassingly new to Lincoln histories, this one feels like an especially good one, focusing on the development of Lincoln’s thoughts on slavery while interspersing some choice biographical details along the way. Foner’s approach reveals Lincoln’s evolution on the issue, both personally and politically, while p...more I listened to this audiobook while driving from Seattle to New Orleans. The book isn’t nearly that long, but I rocked out on the drive considerably more than I had planned. Although I am embarrassingly new to Lincoln histories, this one feels like an especially good one, focusing on the development of Lincoln’s thoughts on slavery while interspersing some choice biographical details along the way. Foner’s approach reveals Lincoln’s evolution on the issue, both personally and politically, while providing significant insight into his political acumen. One of Foner’s key points is that slavery actually posed two questions: first, whether to abolish it, and second, what to do with all those freed slaves. Lincoln remained staunch in his desire to end slavery, but struggled mightily with the second question, advocating for years that slaves should be returned to Africa or brought to an ever-changing list of South American countries. For far too long, it seemed, Lincoln pressed the idea that slaves, once freed, did not have a viable future in America. Lincoln’s struggle with that second question reveal his centrist nature. Even in the mid-1800s, Lincoln was not a progressive on slavery; he was quite clearly not an Abolitionist (those who demanded an end to slavery and the integration of freed blacks into society as fully-fledged citizens). Lincoln, of course, was not on the other end, either (those seeking to maintain slavery in the South and to expand it into the new territories). Instead, Lincoln was forever looking to negotiate a political compromise on slavery – an issue he quite correctly realized would come to define him – in order to preserve the Union. Lincoln, in fact, stated repeatedly that he would do whatever it would take to save the Union, whether that meant abolition, expansion, or something in between. His political calculations were moveable, too. During his famous debates with Douglas he seemed to wither at being so closely associated with African-Americans, moderating his views during the debates and espousing some of his most conservative statements on the issue. As principled as Lincoln may have been, he was very much subject to the blowing of political winds. Maybe its because the wrong of slavery seems so clear that I expected his views to correspond more with modern thought, or that because other countries were further ahead on the issue that he would gain some perspective from their evolution. Instead, slavery in America retained a distinct-ness; our country’s original sin, and one that Lincoln struggled with until the day he died. (less)

like · see review

May 21, 2012 John rated it 4 of 5 stars

Great study of Lincoln focusing almost entirely on his changing attitude toward what to do about slavery. I think the book works because Lincoln acts as a good representative of what was probably a very common, conservative strain of antislavery in the North. Lincoln didn't grow up owning slaves, because his family moved to Indiana, then Illinois from Kentucky when he was a child. He had friends who owned slaves, and his wife's family owned slaves, but Lincoln didn't really like slavery and assu...more

like · see review

May 15, 2012 Carl Brush rated it 4 of 5 stars

Once again, thanks to my buddy across the street, I dived into a Civil War story. This time, The Fiery Trial, a Lincoln phrase, naturally, exploring Abe’s evolving attitudes and policies toward slavery. For a while, I found no surprises, though of course Foner includes some facts and stories that were new to me. However, it was not news that Lincoln was pretty much always anti-slavery. Nor was it news that he
was not much for black-white social or political equality. Most of his life, his notion...more Once again, thanks to my buddy across the street, I dived into a Civil War story. This time, The Fiery Trial, a Lincoln phrase, naturally, exploring Abe’s evolving attitudes and policies toward slavery. For a while, I found no surprises, though of course Foner includes some facts and stories that were new to me. However, it was not news that Lincoln was pretty much always anti-slavery. Nor was it news that he
was not much for black-white social or political equality. Most of his life, his notion about what white folks’ obligation toward Negroes was to get them free so they could keep and eat the bread that was the fruit of their labor. Voting, citizenship, or other civil rights--these matters pretty much didn’t enter his mind.

Even the descriptions of the careful political trail he had to blaze among the various factions vying for his presidential favor were part and parcel of a story with which I’d become quite familiar in my reading of the last few years. About midway through Foner’s narrative, though, some new material manifested. I hadn’t realized how little contact Lincoln had had with colored folks in his life.

Even though he’d grown up in a slave state and even though southern Illinois was only a step or two away in both distance and attitude from KY (I hadn’t realized how different the northern and southern peoples of IN and Ill were befoe reading The Fiery Trial.), both slavery and black people were pretty much abstracts to Lincoln. He entered the presidency and the war firmly resolved to do away with slavery, but was open to many ways to accomplish it. “Gradual” was a big word for him at the time. “Compensation” was another; i.e., paying slaveholders for the “property” they manumitted. He spent a lot of time negotiating such matters with owners in the border states and dreaming up ways of duplicating those offers even to the secessionists. He hung on for a long time to the idea that there were a lot of unionists in the south who would give up the bloody war if they could be shown an honorable method to change their ways and free their chattels.

During all this, he was trying to weave his way among the radical republicans who wanted all slaves freed immediately and granted the rights everyone else had; the moderates, who wanted slavery to end but who were willing to start with freeing the children and letting the thing die a natural death along with the adults; the colonizationists (of whom I was quite surprised to learn that Lincoln was an avid supporter) who believed that white and black could never live together and were exploring African, Central American, and South American venues for new black colonies); and the Democrats who wanted the union to survive, but saw no reason why it couldn’t continue half-slave and half-free as it had for more than fifty years.

Although much of this was masked under arguments about constitutionality, states rights, the economics of farming vs. industry, and the like, it was really all about slavery. No slavery, no war. It was remarkable to me how short-sighted both Lincoln and the abolitionists were about post-slavery,though. Relatively little thought was given to what the society would do when several hundred thousand freed people suddenly needed to earn a living and tens of thousands of plantation acres were suddenly left without their customary caretakers. There were some early, desperate experiments with paying slaves who escaped into Union Army arms to do some of the camp labor. After some fierce struggling, a few thousand men and their families were made soldiers and eventually given freedom. Sherman handed out quite a lot of Georgia land--40 acres per parcel and a mule to go with it--to thousands. But he did it mainly to get rid of the burden of feeding and caring for the hordes who followed his army off the plantations and towns he’d burned as he scorched his route through the Confederacy. In the end, most of these land giveaways and support schemes fell prey to northern capitalists and southern grafters. The slaves realized little.

But Lincoln was a learner. He’d begun to realize that the black folks saw themselves as Americans, that there were many free, intelligent, and accomplished black people, that as soldiers they could fight and die as well as anyone, and that reconstruction society was going to have to deal with them. He’d begun realize that the Confederate principals were intransigent and unrepentant to a degree he’d been unwilling to recognize early on. No one can say how the post-war years would have been different had he lived. However, it is certain that the man who replaced him was a stubborn, short-sighted alienator who was unwilling and unable to learn or compromise or understand any view but his own. Lincoln failed to change the views of many around him, but he generally found ways to work with them or to confound them. Johnson was incapable of any of that. Whatever is uncertain about what direction reconstruction would have taken under Lincoln, it seems certain that the direction it did take, with the lapses into vitriolic vengeance by northerners, black laws, and Jim Crow and all the rest, could not have been worse.

The framers punted on slavery, finding no way to solve the situation beyond the 3/5 rule. They left it to future generations to take care of, and we’re still trying to do it, I guess. All the way through The Fiery Trial I thought of Obama. The racism, of course, which is still so uglyly with us. But also his notion, so much like Lincoln’s, that somewhere in the heart of those who oppose him most bitterly, there must be a place he can reach, a way to bring them along, and the ceaseless efforts to do so in the face of absolute evidence that such efforts are futile. Even though he had little outward success in persuading Kentucky, for example, to pursue abolition using any of the thousand methods he proposed, perhaps his constant, almost humiliating, effort kept them from seceding, which was crucial to the salvation of the union. “I can hope for divine approval,” he said once, “but I need Kentucky’s.”

I knew a lot about what The Fiery Trial had to say, but what I didn’t know was crucial to understanding the war, the society, and the man. You keep trying, learning, growing. To stand and wait is death. Or anyway stagnation, which is just as good as.

(less)

like · see review

Dec 30, 2011 Juanita Rice rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

Put this on your reading list even if, like me, you are not especially a fan of biographies, the Civil War, or most American history books. It steers a careful path between "the mists. . . of hagiography and the muck of denigration" as Sean Wilentz, another Civil War scholar, wrote. Historian Eric Foner wrote this Pulitzer-winning book to track down evidence about Abraham Lincoln's evolving views on race and slavery. And the evidence of those changes and what caused them is something all people...more Put this on your reading list even if, like me, you are not especially a fan of biographies, the Civil War, or most American history books. It steers a careful path between "the mists. . . of hagiography and the muck of denigration" as Sean Wilentz, another Civil War scholar, wrote. Historian Eric Foner wrote this Pulitzer-winning book to track down evidence about Abraham Lincoln's evolving views on race and slavery. And the evidence of those changes and what caused them is something all people should understand. It is—frankly—an argument that the aspirations and struggles of the oppressed do change the world. Yes, abolitionists and people of moral compassion were indispensable in the long struggle against slavery. But the final telling argument against not only slavery but against a socially engrained belief in the inferiority of black Americans was made by the courage, intelligence and dignity of black Americans themselves.

In the beginning of Lincoln's political career, his philosophical goals reflect an appraisal of slavery as antithetical to the "market society," the free labor system he supports as a Whig in the Illinois House of Representatives from 1834 (when he was 25) through 1846 when he is elected to the U.S. House. From his speeches, letters and conversations, through newspaper articles and other reports, Lincoln's moral relationship to slavery is shown to have been one of latent, but blurry, regret until the death of Henry Clay in 1852. In 1850 the Fugitive Slave Act had been the first of a series of victories by pro-slavery forces which ironically strengthened resistance in many places of the north. Over the next seven years pro-slavery forces and anti-black sentiment grew even more powerful, resulting in the passage of Illinois state bars to the entry of African-Americans (1853), the Kansas-Nebraska act as a result of Stephen Douglas legislation (1854) repealing the Missouri Compromise which set a limit to what territories would legalize slavery in the future, and the Dred Scott case (1857) stating that blacks could not be U.S. citizens and therefore could not sue, and that Congress could not bar slavery in any territory.

These years also saw the founding of the Republican party as the Whigs lost momentum entirely. The era prompted Lincoln to a long and deep study of the papers of the founders of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. This study he used in the now-famous series of Lincoln-Douglas debates. His speeches and writings show that he opposes the expansion of slavery more specifically and combatively than before, for reasons of political economy (the "free labor" principles of the Whigs), but also, he argues, because the Constitution and Declaration of Independence reveal the "founders'" attempts to set a bound on slavery because they found the epitome of American morality to be freedom and equality. He argues that the nation cannot continue with two such different systems in place, that a "House Divided cannot stand," and that for the survival of "the American system" slavery must die. In 1860 at NYC's Cooper Institute Lincoln delivers a famous, defining speech, having again made a painstaking search of the legislative and historical positions of the nation's founders, with this stirring conclusion:

Holding, as they [pro-slavery forces] do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing. Nor can we [Republican party} justifiably withhold this, on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality - its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension - its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this? . . . . Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

In November he is elected president with 60% of the electoral vote. By December, South Carolina has seceded. By the March 1861 inaugural ceremonies, it and six more states have formed the Confederate States of America. Throughout the period from 1852 to 1860, it is amply clear that Lincoln hopes slavery will be limited and die away for "the good" of the nation, and not necessarily for "the good" of the American slaves. He explicitly states that he cannot bring himself to envision any kind of social or political "equality" between the black and white populations—"I as much as any man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race," he argued during debates in which Democrats played on white fears of being "overrun" by blacks. The best solution, he maintained along with many anti-slavery whites, must be a return of former slaves to "their home," or at least to some "tropical" colony. In the early years of his presidency, adventurous explorations of parts of Central America and Mexico lead to dead ends and false promises. A predatory conman even gets financing to take 500 African-Americans to "Cow Island" near Haiti for a colony, and a U.S. ship has to be sent to pick up the survivors.

Foner convincingly demonstrates that it was the character, intelligence and courage of black abolitionists, black freedmen in the army, and the press of escaping slaves, along with their rejection of colonization, that demonstrated to Lincoln and the nation at large that Emancipation could win the war, and that it should, in the interest of equality and freedom for American-born peoples.

When Lincoln was inaugurated in March, 1961, Congress had already passed a "first" Thirteenth Amendment barring any act of national legislation against slavery. During the period Lincoln fought off a panic of conciliatory politics and aligned himself more and more with true abolitionists like Salmon P. Chase and William Seward. Lincoln argued forcefully that to bargain with the south because they were unhappy with the election results was to make a farce of the government. Majority rule must remain firmly in place. Behind the scenes he worked tirelessly for the next 4 years to find some compromises that would allow some significant number of pro-union men in the seceded states to form independent governments and realign with the Nation.

But he drew the line at any extension of slavery into new states and territories. It was only six weeks from his inauguration to his first significant political move. He sent humane rescue ships to Fort Sumter which was under siege by the South; rebel forces fired on the ships and therefore the first aggression in the war came from the south. The war was on. In the course of it, Lincoln and his party learned to recognize freed black people as American citizens. It was the recruitment and training of black soldiers that led to the first decisive Union victories just in time to guarantee Lincoln re-election in 1864. In the end, Salmon P. Chase, abolitionist, replaced the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney who had written the Dred Scott decision. Before Lincoln's death, he had published the Emancipation Proclamation as an act of wartime. Shortly after his death, it was made law by the new Congress and Court and Union citizens. Foner only suggests the tragedy that is to come partly because of Lincoln's conciliatory move of naming Andrew Johnson of Tennessee his second vice-president.

I started reading this without much familiarity in the period beyond an ancient American History class or two and then my own quest in the sixties and seventies to learn about the abolitionists and feminists omitted from my education: Sojourner, Cady Stanton, Tubman, Anthony, Douglass, Phillips, Greeley, etc. Consequently it took thirty to forty pages before I became engrossed (this was also hospital convalescence time) and I would recommend prospective readers to brush up their recollections about Henry Clay, the Missouri Compromise, Presidents Polk, Taylor and Buchanan, Democrats, Whigs. But once the book gripped me with its direct methods and clarity, I fought through all the physical obstacles to finish it in about 5 days. And then to re-read it, study, review, re-think.

336 pages, a Chronology 1809-December 18, 1865 when the "second" Thirteenth Amendment which abolishes slavery in the U.S. was ratified eight months after Lincoln's death. A great index. 2010 Pulitzer prize.

(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Jun 04, 2011 Oldesq rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: 2011

In The Fiery Trial:Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery Eric Foner meticulously examines evidence for Lincoln's ideas about slavery, emancipation and reconstruction and how those ideas evolved and changed. As Foner tells the reader, he tries to determine where on the spectrum Lincoln falls both before and during the Civil War. The two ends of the spectrum being: (i) that Lincoln's ideas about slavery constantly evolved as he learned (one wag claims according to this school of thought Lincoln is...more

like · see review

Mar 08, 2011 Ed Brown rated it 5 of 5 stars

For some time I have been interested in attitudes towards slavery in the United States in the antebellum period. I've read about Southerners like Robert E. Lee, wondering how they could own slaves, not to mention fight for the right. Northerners, I thought, were either Democrats, who favored the South, or abolitionists, neither of which seemed that interesting. It hadn't occurred to me that Lincoln's attitudes towards slavery were not only of great importance, but also extremely interesting unti...more

2 likes · like · see review

Nov 09, 2010 Donna rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Lincoln enthusiasts

Shelves: biography-lincoln

When you've read 20 Lincoln biographies one has to ask why read another, but this book actually has a unifying principle different from the rest. Foner looks only at Lincoln's statements and evolving beliefs about slavery. While I've read many of the primary documents before, it is nice to have these particular ones gathered together so you can see the development of Lincoln's abolitionism--but more than that, his understanding of African Americans as "citizens" of this nation who deserved not o...more

2 likes · like · see review

May 26, 2012 Maria rated it 3 of 5 stars Recommends it for: General Public

Recommended to Maria by: Politics & Prose book club

Shelves: biography, history

I finished the book a day after a book club for it. In fact, I bought the book for that book club. It is worthy of discussion, and would have made for an interesting book club because it forced me to ask the question what is the truth versus what is fact?

The book affected me. I thought of this idea over the years, but not with such focused intent: is a fact by definition the truth? Actually, no it's not. Truth is defined in the moment, and what could be construed as true many years hence may be...more I finished the book a day after a book club for it. In fact, I bought the book for that book club. It is worthy of discussion, and would have made for an interesting book club because it forced me to ask the question what is the truth versus what is fact?

The book affected me. I thought of this idea over the years, but not with such focused intent: is a fact by definition the truth? Actually, no it's not. Truth is defined in the moment, and what could be construed as true many years hence may be considered foolishness e.g., the world is flat.

Similarly, during the time period discussed in this book people were arguing whether a major group of United States born people had the capacity for initiative-outside of being forced to work in cruel conditions, and outside of being forced to live each moment of the day as if it was leased to them with exhorbitant interest payments. It was a time when a bunch of white men were deciding the fate of slaves.

Throughout the book, I wondered, is this the truth of what was being discussed? Is this the truth of what was considered fact at that time? It's interesting to read an history book with such scrutiny which resulted from the contents of the book itself. It started when I realized that Lincoln, who has always been in my mind as the Great Emancipator, was portrayed in this book as only the Great Emancipator towards the end of his life. So, what I thought was true, was in fact partially true. And, I only knew this once I read more about his life. I don't plan on reading more about his life, so what I may think as true now, may not be fact . . . which is why I'll just consider the contents of the book interpretation of interpretation of what was considered true.

At some point for any historical question, records must point towards the most true interpretation, and the subject can rest. Otherwise, we will all be cross-eyed constantly trying to figure out if a writer is writing the truth . . . .not the best way to live.

What I got from this book, what has been interpreted from articles, letters, etc., from that time period, is that Lincoln wanted to keep the states together. He bent over backwards to keep the states together for the first 20 years of his political career, and the first few years of his first administration. As with many of us, his views changed the more he discussed them with activists outside of his immediate circle. Then the emancipation of slaves, in some areas usurped keeping the states together. As relayed within this book, he was like any politcian; he worried about public opinion, and how it would affect his party. His party kept dying out or fading away so maybe he was more flexibile when it came to that, but he wanted to placate seceded southern states to preserve the union. As a result at time when more force was warranted he was hesitant.

The writing wasn't like poetry, but it wasn't stagnant like other award-winning history books. About half the book was devoted to his early political career, which was about 20 years, and the other half devoted more to his presidency. This was a good strategy; it gave context for his weaknesses as a decision maker, but also provided a place for him to grow away from.

Reading Group Questions:

1. At what point do you accept an historical interpretation as the truth?
2. Do you think the author presented Lincoln fairly given the documents he had access to-what do you think was the author's intent in writing this book?
3. What topic dicussed within the book needs more research-maybe there is a different interpretation?

Would I reread this book - Yes
Would I recommend this book - Yes
Was the prose elevated to poetry - No(less)

like · see review

Dec 06, 2011 Michael rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, american-history

Foner helps get beyond the myth of the Great Emancipator without unfairly eviscerating Lincoln's legacy, and in the process shows not necessarily how great a man Lincoln was, but how great a politician he was, one whose response to popular will strikes us as almost populist in these days of thinly veiled plutocracy.

Notes:

The lack of documented statements and letters concerning Lincoln's thoughts on slavery is surprising. Lincoln's political moderation is frustrating at times, when you'd much pre...more

like · see review

Jul 18, 2011 Matthew Linton rated it 3 of 5 stars

Of all the great historical figures in American history, few (if any) have had as much ink spilled analyzing their accomplishments as Abraham Lincoln. He has been psychologically cross-examined, his every political decision has been scrutinized, and his personal relationships have been discussed ad nauseum in an attempt to understand Lincoln and the choices he made as President of the United States during the Civil War. With so much scholarship to contend with it is puzzling that acclaimed Civil...more Of all the great historical figures in American history, few (if any) have had as much ink spilled analyzing their accomplishments as Abraham Lincoln. He has been psychologically cross-examined, his every political decision has been scrutinized, and his personal relationships have been discussed ad nauseum in an attempt to understand Lincoln and the choices he made as President of the United States during the Civil War. With so much scholarship to contend with it is puzzling that acclaimed Civil War historic an Eric Foner would attempt a Lincoln biography. Foner, perhaps better than any one else, is familiar with the exhaustive literature on Lincoln and how the force of his personality shaped the Civil War and its cause: black slavery. However, Foner's Lincoln is both an attempt to rediscover the central importance of slavery in Lincoln's thought and also to employ the force of the "Lincoln legacy" in the cause of moderate politics in America today, a sphere increasingly fractious as the recent economic downturn has heightened the stakes of every political decision.

Above all, Foner's Lincoln was a moderate. Borne from the legacy of compromise handed down from his "beau ideal of a statesman" Henry Clay, at every stage of his political career from Springfield to Washington Lincoln sought to build bridges between warring political factions. His early career as a Whig from Illinois was defined by attempts to unite a state split between Northern abolitionist radicalism and Southern pro-slavery traditionalists. As his political influence expanded nationally, Lincoln sought a series of half-measures to assuage Northern abolitionists and pro-slavery Southerners alike such as ending the expansion of slavery into the territories, but allowing it to continue where it was already law and offering to recolonize free blacks outside of the United States. Lincoln's attempts at reconciliation between the North and South ultimately failed and led to a protracted Civil War where Lincoln used his powers as President to push forth the Emancipation Proclamation and establish the Freedman's Bureau to support freed slaves after the Union victory. However, even as Lincoln invoked the powers of the President to free the slaves in the South, Foner is at pains to show that Lincoln attempted every other avenue to carve a via media between Northern and Souther aims regarding slavery. He also credits Lincoln's moderation during the Civil War with keeping slave-holding Union states like Maryland and Kentucky from joining the Confederacy and dooming the Union cause.

Clearly, Foner's primary aim in "The Fiery Trial" is to show the importance of moderate politics during the Sturm und Drang of political crises. His Lincoln is incredibly similar to Barack Obama in both political path and Weltanschauung. Both Lincoln and Obama came from outside Illinois to successfully pursue state political office before moving to Washington and eventually the Presidency. Both were (or is in the case of Obama) gifted orators and masters of political rhetoric. Finally, both men were political moderates eschewing the political radicalism of their times in an attempt to affect meaningful policy change. It is certainly far too early to assess Obama's political career (as James Kloppenberg should have known before writing "Reading Obama"), but "The Fiery Trial" shows how Lincoln's successful path on a single political issue could be duplicated by future leaders. Though another Lincoln book was probably superfluous, Foner's Lincoln is fascinating because of what it says about our current political climate and how strong leadership (but not arrogance) can help a nation weather even the most devastating political turmoil. (less)

2 likes · like · see review

May 19, 2013 Mike rated it 5 of 5 stars

Imagine a life in which a man's political point of view comes about as a result of a lifetime of reflection and consideration of shifting facts and perspectives. It's fairly incredible to consider, in today's poisonous political climate, that Lincoln would just be condemned as a flip-flopper or a man who claimed philosophical "evolution" in the name of expediency. The idea that change can occur in human thought appears to be anathema to the prevailing Republican ethos.

(Current Republicans shoul...more

like · see review

Oct 30, 2012 Kevin Sheives rated it 3 of 5 stars

This book began with a dud, and ended in a gripping flurry. If it weren't for 200 pages of 1840s and 1850s minutiae about Lincoln's consistent, non-committal views on slavery during that time, I'd give this book 4 stars. This section could have easily been done in 50-75 pages. Despite this, Foner does a very nice job presenting a wealth of research from a variety of sources on the most celebrated aspect of Lincoln. The book really picks up around page 215, when the Civil War begins and emancipat...more

like · see review

Dec 15, 2012 Chris rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction-history

Abraham Lincoln. He strides across the American stage like a colossus. It is impossible to understand American history without understanding him and his presidency. He known for many things, but for two above all: preserving the Union, and ending slavery.

The latter is the main focus of Eric Foner’s magnificent work, The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. But these two great achievements—saving the nation and emancipating the slaves—are more closely bound to each other than many r...more

like · see review

Feb 09, 2013 Dennis Fischman rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: people who saw the movie Lincoln and want to know more

Recommended to Dennis by: Nina Mayer

Shelves: nonfiction

By tracing the evolution of Lincoln's thinking about slavery, Foner shows us a lot about our country that we have forgotten. How many of us know or remember that tariffs (taxes on imports, meant to encourage the growth of home-grown industry) were a much bigger issue in the early 1800's than slavery? Or that opposition to slavery was once grounded in the desire to ensure an economy of capitalists employing free, white working men (which the slaveholders and the labor movement both denounced, wit...more By tracing the evolution of Lincoln's thinking about slavery, Foner shows us a lot about our country that we have forgotten. How many of us know or remember that tariffs (taxes on imports, meant to encourage the growth of home-grown industry) were a much bigger issue in the early 1800's than slavery? Or that opposition to slavery was once grounded in the desire to ensure an economy of capitalists employing free, white working men (which the slaveholders and the labor movement both denounced, with good reason, as "wage slavery")? Who knew that the aim of preserving "the Union" was in part to create a stronger national government to push national economic growth? Or that decent men like Lincoln could hate slavery but feel little or no sense of fellow humanity with the African people his white countrymen had enslaved?

Toward the end of his life, Lincoln would be forced to change his attitude somewhat by the military exploits of the all-black 54th Massachusetts Regiment and by encounters with brilliant men like Frederick Douglass. Yet he never entirely gave up on the idea that black people would need years of tutelage before they could be free, and he only relinquished the idea of pushing black people to move to colonies (in Africa, or South America--anywhere far away from white Americans!) with great reluctance.

This book will not let us settle for a picture of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator who tirelessly worked for freedom. Nor will it encourage in us the cynical view that Lincoln cared nothing about slavery and only about his own power. It shows his genius at taking other people's ideas and speaking about them in simple and memorable ways--while making it clear that they were other people's ideas first. Lincoln emerges as someone who grows over time, and he deserves credit for that. He also warrants recognition for his political skills. But if any white people should be remembered for their role in bringing about emancipation, first remember Charles Sumner, Benjamin Butler, William Lloyd Garrison, and Harriet Beecher Stowe. Then, and only then, Lincoln.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Dec 07, 2010 Ray rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Not a biography of Lincoln, but an insightful look at the Nation's, as well as Lincoln's, position on slavery and the equality and rights applicable to the enslaved and freed blacks. It's a well known era of our Nations history, and we all know the basics. But not many books can cover such a well known subject and still introduce so many new or unrecognized facts about slavery and the viewpoints of the citizens and politicians of the day.
While slavery is acknowleged as evil, undoing the slavery...more

like · see review

May 05, 2013 Matt Parkins rated it 5 of 5 stars

Excellent book. Foner presents a mini-biography of Lincoln in relation to solely the slavery issue and his changing views about the "peculiar institution," how to bring about its eventual extinction and what to do with the slaves once they were free. Foner admits openly that he is an admirer of Lincoln but he is very balanced in his treatment of the man. He does not lionize or beatify him. He presents him as a progressive man for his time in regards to race relations, but he makes it clear that...more

like · see review

Sep 25, 2011 Brad Hodges rated it 5 of 5 stars

The Fiery Trial is a Pulitzer-Prize winning analysis of Abraham Lincoln's views of slavery and race. Written by esteemed historian Eric Foner, is it many ways an amazing tale, especially compared with the politics of today. In an era when many political candidates are proud of their intransigence, and "flip-flop" is a dirty word, Lincoln's evolution of thought is an admirable one, and it ended up setting the course of American history.

As Foner points out, "Lincoln has been described as a consumm...more The Fiery Trial is a Pulitzer-Prize winning analysis of Abraham Lincoln's views of slavery and race. Written by esteemed historian Eric Foner, is it many ways an amazing tale, especially compared with the politics of today. In an era when many political candidates are proud of their intransigence, and "flip-flop" is a dirty word, Lincoln's evolution of thought is an admirable one, and it ended up setting the course of American history.

As Foner points out, "Lincoln has been described as a consummate moralist and a shrewd political operative, a lifelong foe of slavery and an inveterate racist. Politicians from conservatives to communists, civil rights activists to segregationists, and members of every Protestant denomination as well as nonbelievers, have claimed him as their own."

However, Foner also points out: "Lincoln was strongly antislavery, but he was not an abolitionist or a Radical Republican and never claimed to be one. He made a sharp distinction between his frequently reiterated personal wish that 'all men everywhere could be free' and his official duties as a legislator, congressman, and president in a legal and constitutional system that recognized the South's right to property in slaves."

The book is structured as biography, with Lincoln's beliefs and attitudes about slavery and race at its core. As a young man he grew up in a society that did not believe in the equality of blacks. Kentucky the state of his birth, was a slave state, and though Illinois had outlawed slavery it was a deeply racist state. Lincoln's grandfather had been murdered by a black man, and prejudice ran deep. But he had always believed slavery was wrong, if not only for the inhumanity, but because it was "both injustice and bad policy." He also wrote, "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is wrong, nothing is wrong." But he also believed in the rule of law, and during his early political career he fully recognized the rights of slave-owners. The Republican Party grew out of a combination of abolitionists, who would have freed slaves immediately, and the more conservative, who wanted to stop its expansion into territories.

When Lincoln became president and the Civil War began, Lincoln began to evolve. He is famously quoted as writing, "I would save the Union. I would save it in the shortest way under the Constitution...My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery." But by September 1862 he had decided to emancipate the slaves, and he stated clearly by the end of war that it was about slavery.

Two intertwined themes best display Lincoln's evolution of thought: colonization and black troops. Initially Lincoln was for one and against the other. Colonization was a hot topic early in the war, as many thought slaves should be freed, but then what to do with them? Many ideas of relocation were hatched, including an island off Haiti and a coal-mining area of Colombia. Most black leaders were against it, including Frederick Douglass, who rightly stated that slaves were Americans. Lincoln was worried, also rightly so, that freed blacks would endure horrible and racist recriminations, and would be better off leaving.

As for the recruitment of black troops, Lincoln was against this, but eventually relented. The valor of black troops during the Civil War is well-documented, and afterward Lincoln completely dropped the idea of colonization. One seemed to eliminate the other--accepting that a man can fight for his country is in itself a statement that he is a citizen. In his last speech, Lincoln spoke of allowing certain blacks, namely the "intelligent" and servicemen, the right to vote. It is thought that this was what put John Wilkes Booth, who was in the audience that night, over the edge.

Foner also closely and fascinatingly documents the development of the Emancipation Proclamation, which is widely misunderstood. It only freed slaves in the the Confederate states that were not under Union control. Thus, slaves in the border states that did not secede (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware) and states and portions of states that were under Union control, such as Tennessee and parts of Louisiana, were not freed. But it signaled another remarkable change in Lincoln. He had talked of gradual emancipation, and compensation to slave owners. But the Proclamation was immediate and without compensation, like a band-aid being ripped off.

The book is full of little tidbits that bear repeating, such as the accidental good fortune of George McClellan's incompetence as a general. McClellan, of course, was reticent about attacking, and dithered so much that he was eventually replaced (he would run against Lincoln for president in 1864 and lose). Foner points out, perceptively, that had McClellan succeeded and the war shortened, the Emancipation Proclamation may have never come, and a different, gradual emancipation may have been the result. It's not often that a black man can be grateful to George McClellan.

Andrew Johnson comes in for some harsh treatment, too. Foner's tone is so heartbreaking when he discusses how Johnson was the complete opposite of Lincoln, and a horrible president. Of course, no one can say for sure how Lincoln would have handled reconstruction, but it's not a stretch to think he would have handled it better than Johnson, who was openly racist.

Every book I read about Lincoln I admire him more. He is no saint (he commonly used the word "nigger" in conversation, a result of his upbringing). He had little contact with educated blacks before the war, but after meeting with Douglass and others he came to believe that they were equal with whites. As Foner puts it, "Lincoln did not enter the White House expecting to preside over the destruction of slavery. A powerful combination of events...propelled him down the road to emancipation and then to a reconsideration of the place blacks would occupy in a post-slavery America...as the presidency of his successor demonstrated, not all men placed in a similar situation possessed the capacity for growth, the essence of Lincoln's greatness."
(less)

like · see review

Oct 01, 2012 Mark Isero rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: in-kindle

Eric Foner is one of my favorite historians. He writes brilliantly and offers connections between history and the present day. I was a lucky participant in one of his workshops at Columbia University a few years back. The Fiery Trial offers an excellent portrait of Abraham Lincoln and his beliefs about slavery. Foner does a fine job creating an appropriately complex figure of Lincoln, instead of making him too heroic. What's important is understanding the time and the complicated state of the co...more

like · see review

Apr 14, 2011 Jill rated it 4 of 5 stars

For The Fiery Trial, Foner narrows his historical lenses to get to the heart of the controversy over Lincoln’s stand on slavery: was he pulled along by northern radicals, or did he step out in front of them? Was his endless procrastination intentional for political reasons? Was he, in the final analysis, a racist?

Eric Foner knows how to tell this history in the gripping manner it deserves, without any conjecturing, speculating, axe-grinding, tediousness or other practices that characterize lesse...more

like · see review

Apr 06, 2013 Don rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: top-25, history, non-fiction, top-50

I have read too much about Lincoln in the past 3 years, so I had this deep on the backburner, but for some reason I picked it up at Elliott Bay Books on my birthday... And ... What ... A ... Book!

There are many, many good Lincoln books, but somehow this rolls so much of the most pertinent information, research, and anecdotes into one contextually rich volume (and only 330 pages), I cannot believe how good this is. Eric Foner shares information in such well-written, connected ways that every page...more

like · see review

Apr 26, 2011 Jamie rated it 4 of 5 stars

I decided to read this book thinking it would be sort of a biography about Abraham Lincoln, it is not. Still a very interesting read because while slavery is a well known era of our Nations history, after reading this, I found that I really only knew the basics.
It seems that even people who felt that way at the time had to worry about just letting them go, they would have no jobs, no money and no land. They feared they would be resentful and be just roaming around the country taking what they w...more

like · see review

Feb 27, 2013 Bill Talley rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: american, history, biography, gmbc, to-purchase-hard-copy

This is a fascinating book that takes an in depth look at Lincoln's ascendency to the President and how he dealt with the issue of slavery on his way to the Presidency and after he was elected. There is such a myth built up around Lincoln as the Great Emancipator that one really hates to upset the picture of him, but this book does just that. The book makes the case that Lincoln's greatness was that he was able to rise to the occasion of being a leader in a time when a lesser man may have abdica...more

like · see review

Sep 26, 2011 Ken added it

There is so much American history that I never got in high school or college. And I paid attention!

This is a really different view of Lincoln and slavery in America for me.

From Publishers Weekly:
A mixture of visionary progressivism and repugnant racism, Abraham Lincoln's attitude toward slavery is the most troubling aspect of his public life, one that gets a probing assessment in this study. Columbia historian and Bancroft Prize winner Foner (Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men) traces the complexi...more

like · see review

Feb 16, 2011 Matt Mishkoff rated it 4 of 5 stars

I've read two books by Foner now - this and the abbreviated version of his Reconstruction history book - and I've become a fan of his style of history writing: academic but not dry, personal and not just a litany of facts. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of books about Lincoln, but Foner makes his stand out by focusing on just one part of Lincoln's life: his evolving views of slavery. Those with only a cursory knowledge of Lincoln (and I admit to being one of those people before reading this...more

like · see review

title link	preview: The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery
avg rating	preview: The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery Goodreads rating: 4.09 (999 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8753495-the-fiery-trial?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348470645l/8753495.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8753495-the-fiery-trial?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery by Eric Foner[/url]

The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (8)

Videos About This Book

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Eric Foner

Books by Eric Foner

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Fiery Trial: ...

Quotes from The Fiery Trial: Abrah...