What do you think?
Rate this book
Abraham Lincoln
As outspoken in his day as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens are today, American freethinker and author ROBERT GREEN INGERSOLL (1833-1899) was a notorious radical whose uncompromising views on religion and slavery (they were bad, in his opinion), women's suffrage (a good idea, he believed), and other contentious matters of his era made him a wildly popular orator and critic of 19th-century American culture and public life. Ingersoll published this lecture in 1894, a stirring tribute to the honesty, courage, and genius of a beloved leader at a time when his life and works were still within living memory. Focusing in particular on Lincoln's abhorrence of slavery and his work to defeat it as a national institution, Ingersoll offers readers today an invaluable perspective on the great President from the era immediately after his own, when his legend was being cemented in the American imagination.
102 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1894
About the author
Robert G. Ingersoll
995 books333 followers"On August 11, 1833, was born the greatest and noblest of the Western World; an immense personality, -- unique, lovable, sublime; the peerless orator of all time, and as true a poet as Nature ever held in tender clasp upon her loving breast, and, in words coined for the chosen few, told of the joys and sorrows, hopes, dreams, and fears of universal life; a patriot whose golden words and deathless deeds were worthy of the Great Republic; a philanthropist, real and genuine; a philosopher whose central theme was human love, -- who placed 'the holy hearth of home' higher than the altar of any god; an iconoclast, a builder -- a reformer, perfectly poised, absolutely honest, and as fearless as truth itself -- the most aggressive and formidable foe of superstition -- the most valiant champion of reason -- Robert G. Ingersoll." - Herman E. Kittredge
Robert Green Ingersoll, who became the best known advocate of freethought in the 19th-century, was born in Dresden, N.Y. The son of an impoverished itinerant pastor, he later recalled his formative church experiences: "The minister asked us if we knew that we all deserved to go to hell, and we all answered 'yes.' Then we were asked if we would be willing to go to hell if it was God's will, and every little liar shouted 'Yes!'" He became an attorney by apprenticeship, and a colonel in the Civil War, fighting in the Battle of Shiloh. In 1867, Ingersoll was appointed Illinois' first Attorney General. His political career was cut short by his refusal to halt his controversial lectures, but he achieved national political fame for his thrilling nomination speech for James G. Blaine for president at the national convention of the Republican Party in 1876. Ingersoll was good friends with three U.S. presidents. The distinguished attorney was known and admired by most of the leading progressives and thinkers of his day.
Ingersoll traveled the continent for 30 years, speaking to capacity audiences, once attracting 50,000 people to a lecture in Chicago—40,000 too many for the Exposition Center. His repertoire included 3 to 4-hour lectures on Shakespeare, Voltaire and Burns, but the largest crowds turned out to hear him denounce the bible and religion. He initially settled in Peoria, Illinois, then in Washington, D.C., where he successfully defended falsely accused men in the "Star Route" scandal, the most famous political trial of the 19th century. Religious rumors against Ingersoll abounded. One had it that Ingersoll's son was a drunkard who more than once had to be carried away from the table. Ingersoll wrote: "It is not true that intoxicating beverages are served at my table. It is not true that my son ever was drunk. It is not true that he had to be carried away from the table. Besides, I have no son!"
During the Civil War he was commissioned as Colonel and commander of the 11th Illinois Volunteer Cavalry, and was captured near Corinth, Mississippi. Although soon released, he still made time to treat his Confederate captors to a rousing anti slavery speech.
He hoped for but was never awarded a Cabinet post. The Republicans were afraid of his unorthodox religious views. He was told that he could progress politically if he hid his religious views, but Ingersoll refused on the charge that withholding information from the public would be immoral.
He strongly advocated equal rights for blacks and women. He defended Susan B. Anthony from hecklers when she spoke in Peoria; when every hotel in the city refused to house Frederick Douglass, he welcomed him into his home.
More: https://ffrf.org/news/day/dayitems/it...
http://infidels.org/library/historica...
http://www.robertgreeningersoll.org/8-2/
http://www.positiveatheism.org/tochin...
http://www.philosopedia.org/index.php...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G...
Robert Green Ingersoll, who became the best known advocate of freethought in the 19th-century, was born in Dresden, N.Y. The son of an impoverished itinerant pastor, he later recalled his formative church experiences: "The minister asked us if we knew that we all deserved to go to hell, and we all answered 'yes.' Then we were asked if we would be willing to go to hell if it was God's will, and every little liar shouted 'Yes!'" He became an attorney by apprenticeship, and a colonel in the Civil War, fighting in the Battle of Shiloh. In 1867, Ingersoll was appointed Illinois' first Attorney General. His political career was cut short by his refusal to halt his controversial lectures, but he achieved national political fame for his thrilling nomination speech for James G. Blaine for president at the national convention of the Republican Party in 1876. Ingersoll was good friends with three U.S. presidents. The distinguished attorney was known and admired by most of the leading progressives and thinkers of his day.
Ingersoll traveled the continent for 30 years, speaking to capacity audiences, once attracting 50,000 people to a lecture in Chicago—40,000 too many for the Exposition Center. His repertoire included 3 to 4-hour lectures on Shakespeare, Voltaire and Burns, but the largest crowds turned out to hear him denounce the bible and religion. He initially settled in Peoria, Illinois, then in Washington, D.C., where he successfully defended falsely accused men in the "Star Route" scandal, the most famous political trial of the 19th century. Religious rumors against Ingersoll abounded. One had it that Ingersoll's son was a drunkard who more than once had to be carried away from the table. Ingersoll wrote: "It is not true that intoxicating beverages are served at my table. It is not true that my son ever was drunk. It is not true that he had to be carried away from the table. Besides, I have no son!"
During the Civil War he was commissioned as Colonel and commander of the 11th Illinois Volunteer Cavalry, and was captured near Corinth, Mississippi. Although soon released, he still made time to treat his Confederate captors to a rousing anti slavery speech.
He hoped for but was never awarded a Cabinet post. The Republicans were afraid of his unorthodox religious views. He was told that he could progress politically if he hid his religious views, but Ingersoll refused on the charge that withholding information from the public would be immoral.
He strongly advocated equal rights for blacks and women. He defended Susan B. Anthony from hecklers when she spoke in Peoria; when every hotel in the city refused to house Frederick Douglass, he welcomed him into his home.
More: https://ffrf.org/news/day/dayitems/it...
http://infidels.org/library/historica...
http://www.robertgreeningersoll.org/8-2/
http://www.positiveatheism.org/tochin...
http://www.philosopedia.org/index.php...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 3, 2021
On the whole, I don't read plays very much; I'm generally of the opinion that they can be experienced better by seeing them performed. But my opportunities for seeing performances of plays have often been rather limited, for various reasons; and there have been times, especially in my younger days, when I've read one. (Since they tell a story, they can, in a way, be read like a novel --and, indeed, were often read that way by ordinary readers in the days when fiction wasn't as widely available as it is now!) In many cases, these were required reads for high school or college classes, but some weren't; this was one read for pleasure/interest, back while I was still in high school, as a public library check-out.
John Drinkwater (1882-1937) was an early 20th-century British man of letters, a writer of poetry and serious literary criticism, including the multi-volume Outline of Literature, as well as of historical plays. This work (which is the only one of his that I've read myself) was his first major achievement in writing for the stage, produced to great local acclaim in Birmingham in 1918. Aware of this, noted novelist Arnold Bennett read the play, liked it, and in 1919 arranged with the author to bring it to the Hammersmith Playhouse in the London suburbs, which Bennett had recently joined with Nigel Playfair to start up as a venue for quality drama. (Bennett contributes a four-page Introductory Note to the 1927 Houghton Mifflin American printing, which is both the edition I read and the one I have before me to refer to now; and Drinkwater himself supplied an author's Note.) It proved to be a long-running hit, and its success made the author's reputation.
In the years when I was growing up, every year on Abraham Lincoln's birthday, one of the then only three TV networks presented a production of American dramatist Robert Sherwood's play Abe Lincoln in Illinois, starring Jason Robards. I've never read the latter play; but I never missed watching it. My interest in Drinkwater's play --which basically covers Lincoln's time as President, beginning approximately where Sherwood's play ends-- was probably to read a continuation of the saga in dramatic format, besides my intrinsic interest in history and my desire at that time of life to become "educated," partly by experiencing quality literature.
One Goodreads reviewer faulted this play because it has significant historical inaccuracies. While some of the characters are real, others are invented; actions and attitudes attributed to the real characters are not always grounded in reality; while some dialogue is actually quoted from Lincoln or other historical figures in his orbit, much of it was not said in the contexts where it's presented; and (more seriously) some of the decisions made are presented in a distorted or oversimplified fashion, and events did not always unfold in the way they're presented here. (Lincoln, for instance, was nowhere near Appomattox when Lee surrendered.) It's important to recognize that the author's purpose was less to present actual history than to exhibit Lincoln's personal character, for which he had a great admiration (his understanding of the American President's character and life comes from the biography by Lord Charnwood, to whom the play is dedicated), and he admits to a lot of dramatic license in pursuing that aim. Some modern readers/viewers will not like the use of the device, carried over from classical Greek drama, of Chroniclers discussing the significance of the action in poetry, at the beginning of the play and key points during it (though this didn't bother me). In his conversation with (invented) black character William Custis, Lincoln comes across here in something of a White Savior mode. But overall, I did like the play (albeit not as much as Sherwood's!).
Note: I don't usually add to a review after posting it; but this one was posted in a bit of a hurry because time was getting late. Readers may want to be warned that there a couple of instances of racist language here, including one use of the n-word. That reflects the speech of many people in the 1860s, but the message of the play itself is not racist.
John Drinkwater (1882-1937) was an early 20th-century British man of letters, a writer of poetry and serious literary criticism, including the multi-volume Outline of Literature, as well as of historical plays. This work (which is the only one of his that I've read myself) was his first major achievement in writing for the stage, produced to great local acclaim in Birmingham in 1918. Aware of this, noted novelist Arnold Bennett read the play, liked it, and in 1919 arranged with the author to bring it to the Hammersmith Playhouse in the London suburbs, which Bennett had recently joined with Nigel Playfair to start up as a venue for quality drama. (Bennett contributes a four-page Introductory Note to the 1927 Houghton Mifflin American printing, which is both the edition I read and the one I have before me to refer to now; and Drinkwater himself supplied an author's Note.) It proved to be a long-running hit, and its success made the author's reputation.
In the years when I was growing up, every year on Abraham Lincoln's birthday, one of the then only three TV networks presented a production of American dramatist Robert Sherwood's play Abe Lincoln in Illinois, starring Jason Robards. I've never read the latter play; but I never missed watching it. My interest in Drinkwater's play --which basically covers Lincoln's time as President, beginning approximately where Sherwood's play ends-- was probably to read a continuation of the saga in dramatic format, besides my intrinsic interest in history and my desire at that time of life to become "educated," partly by experiencing quality literature.
One Goodreads reviewer faulted this play because it has significant historical inaccuracies. While some of the characters are real, others are invented; actions and attitudes attributed to the real characters are not always grounded in reality; while some dialogue is actually quoted from Lincoln or other historical figures in his orbit, much of it was not said in the contexts where it's presented; and (more seriously) some of the decisions made are presented in a distorted or oversimplified fashion, and events did not always unfold in the way they're presented here. (Lincoln, for instance, was nowhere near Appomattox when Lee surrendered.) It's important to recognize that the author's purpose was less to present actual history than to exhibit Lincoln's personal character, for which he had a great admiration (his understanding of the American President's character and life comes from the biography by Lord Charnwood, to whom the play is dedicated), and he admits to a lot of dramatic license in pursuing that aim. Some modern readers/viewers will not like the use of the device, carried over from classical Greek drama, of Chroniclers discussing the significance of the action in poetry, at the beginning of the play and key points during it (though this didn't bother me). In his conversation with (invented) black character William Custis, Lincoln comes across here in something of a White Savior mode. But overall, I did like the play (albeit not as much as Sherwood's!).
Note: I don't usually add to a review after posting it; but this one was posted in a bit of a hurry because time was getting late. Readers may want to be warned that there a couple of instances of racist language here, including one use of the n-word. That reflects the speech of many people in the 1860s, but the message of the play itself is not racist.
August 25, 2024
I learned of the existence of this piece in a book of Elizabeth Bacon Custer’s memories of the Civil War. She apparently attended a NY performance of the play in 1919 and commented that the portrayal of Lincoln, whom she had met personally, was moving and true-to-life. I’m always curious about the environment in which people live out their lives. I hope to understand them better, so when I learn of something that delighted or enraged someone in the past, I like to know what that something was, or was like. Thus I bought this small inexpensive text of John Drinkwater’s 1918 play.
I learned that it was based on the first-ever biography of Lincoln, published in 1918 in London by one Lord Charnwood, aka Godfrey Rathbone Benson, First Baron Charnwood. It’s very curious that the first-ever Lincoln biography should have been written by an Englishman, and equally curious that this play was written by JD, an obscure Artistic Director at the Birmingham Repertory Theater where the play enjoyed great success even before it moved to Hammersmith, near London. I suppose England must have been more-or-less teeming with Americans in mid-1918 (though with fewer than during WW2) so there would have been some active curiosity among the natives about their American cousins, and something of a ready audience among American citizens in the UK at the time, so, as a commercial enterprise, both the book and the play make sense. And with WW1 still going on, the topic of war leadership and war itself were certainly of contemporary interest. So, the play certainly provides something of a glimpse into ‘stuff people found interesting’ at the time. Attitudes, prejudices, perspectives and such are likewise revealed. Reading the play and giving thought to its context helps one reconstruct the world in 1918. That’s valuable.
As for the play itself, well, it’s not even mediocre, but I suppose it’s no worse than most of the rubbish we’re force-fed on a daily basis today, via radio, TV, movies, theater including Broadway, the internet, The NY Times inter alia…it’s all crap. Some things never change.
But the world WAS different in 1918. The author’s attempt at a “Negro dialect” was groan-worthy, although it did make me wonder if the character in question (Custis) wasn’t half American Indian. I kept expecting him to say “Ugh” or “How.” The writing was truly pathetic. But still interesting.
In any case, I don’t think this play will ever be produced again, anywhere, unless as a historical curiosity. For that we should be thankful.
I learned that it was based on the first-ever biography of Lincoln, published in 1918 in London by one Lord Charnwood, aka Godfrey Rathbone Benson, First Baron Charnwood. It’s very curious that the first-ever Lincoln biography should have been written by an Englishman, and equally curious that this play was written by JD, an obscure Artistic Director at the Birmingham Repertory Theater where the play enjoyed great success even before it moved to Hammersmith, near London. I suppose England must have been more-or-less teeming with Americans in mid-1918 (though with fewer than during WW2) so there would have been some active curiosity among the natives about their American cousins, and something of a ready audience among American citizens in the UK at the time, so, as a commercial enterprise, both the book and the play make sense. And with WW1 still going on, the topic of war leadership and war itself were certainly of contemporary interest. So, the play certainly provides something of a glimpse into ‘stuff people found interesting’ at the time. Attitudes, prejudices, perspectives and such are likewise revealed. Reading the play and giving thought to its context helps one reconstruct the world in 1918. That’s valuable.
As for the play itself, well, it’s not even mediocre, but I suppose it’s no worse than most of the rubbish we’re force-fed on a daily basis today, via radio, TV, movies, theater including Broadway, the internet, The NY Times inter alia…it’s all crap. Some things never change.
But the world WAS different in 1918. The author’s attempt at a “Negro dialect” was groan-worthy, although it did make me wonder if the character in question (Custis) wasn’t half American Indian. I kept expecting him to say “Ugh” or “How.” The writing was truly pathetic. But still interesting.
In any case, I don’t think this play will ever be produced again, anywhere, unless as a historical curiosity. For that we should be thankful.
August 2, 2024
I’d read and quite enjoyed some poetry by John Drinkwater so I was pleased to spy a slim, vintage volume on a second-hand bookstall with his name on the spine. It wasn’t verse, as I’d imagined. It was a stage play called “Abraham Lincoln”.
It turned out that this play had been written – and first staged – just before the end of the First World War and it had been extraordinarily popular. By March 1924 (the date of my copy) it had already been re-printed 17 times.
I was puzzled as to why this particular episode of American history should have captured the attention of the British theatre-going public to such a remarkable degree. At one level the play is an engaging, dramatic account of the life and times of one of the United States’ most famous presidents (with a humble foreword from the author, apologising, as a Brit, for his failure to capture the “local colour” and idiom of America).
Reading the play, I could feel how powerfully the drama would have unfolded on the stage. But it was when I thought more about the times in which John Drinkwater wrote his “Abraham Lincoln” that I started to grasp its impact on its contemporary audience.
Some of the most gripping scenes reflect how the Civil War is tearing America apart not only on the battlefield but in everyday life where families and friends find themselves on opposing sides of political and ideological rifts. Abraham Lincoln recognises the huge challenge that peace will bring – as two violently opposed sides have to move forward together after the war.
How to deal with the enemy when hostilities end – are reparations and reconciliation compatible, does remembrance mean forgiveness? – these very live debates at the end of the First World War must have made Drinkwater’s historical drama seem extraordinarily vivid and relevant. A century on, I was just as gripped and moved.
It turned out that this play had been written – and first staged – just before the end of the First World War and it had been extraordinarily popular. By March 1924 (the date of my copy) it had already been re-printed 17 times.
I was puzzled as to why this particular episode of American history should have captured the attention of the British theatre-going public to such a remarkable degree. At one level the play is an engaging, dramatic account of the life and times of one of the United States’ most famous presidents (with a humble foreword from the author, apologising, as a Brit, for his failure to capture the “local colour” and idiom of America).
Reading the play, I could feel how powerfully the drama would have unfolded on the stage. But it was when I thought more about the times in which John Drinkwater wrote his “Abraham Lincoln” that I started to grasp its impact on its contemporary audience.
Some of the most gripping scenes reflect how the Civil War is tearing America apart not only on the battlefield but in everyday life where families and friends find themselves on opposing sides of political and ideological rifts. Abraham Lincoln recognises the huge challenge that peace will bring – as two violently opposed sides have to move forward together after the war.
How to deal with the enemy when hostilities end – are reparations and reconciliation compatible, does remembrance mean forgiveness? – these very live debates at the end of the First World War must have made Drinkwater’s historical drama seem extraordinarily vivid and relevant. A century on, I was just as gripped and moved.
November 12, 2017
The play is interesting but a little hard to follow since there's no description of what is happening. I did enjoy hearing about different parts of Lincoln's life from his perspective and that of those close to him.
It's strange but interesting to listen to an audio book with so many narrators, but it works well in the play format.
I received a free copy of this book from the author and/or narrator and/or publisher in exchange for an honest review.
It's strange but interesting to listen to an audio book with so many narrators, but it works well in the play format.
I received a free copy of this book from the author and/or narrator and/or publisher in exchange for an honest review.
December 1, 2021
Eh.School stuff
December 25, 2016
Maybe this kind of thing was stylish in 1919. It's a collage of Lincoln quotes, Lincoln adoration, self-conscious emphasis on the "Great Emancipator" image and sloppy political mash-ups. Drinkwater puts Lincoln's real words in his mouth, out of context, and also in the mouths of others, out of context. It's an historical curiosity, not a serious historical treatment. Interesting to own it, no fun to read it.
More at
http://richardsubber.com/
More at
http://richardsubber.com/
December 27, 2016
Maybe this kind of thing was stylish in 1919. It's a collage of Lincoln quotes, Lincoln adoration, self-conscious emphasis on the "Great Emancipator" image and sloppy political mash-ups. Drinkwater puts Lincoln's real words in his mouth, out of context, and also in the mouths of others, out of context. It's an historical curiosity, not a serious historical treatment. Interesting to own it, no fun to read it.
Read more at
http://richardsubber.com/
Read more at
http://richardsubber.com/
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews