LAND OF LINCOLN: ADVENTURES IN ABE'S AMERICA by Andrew Ferguson

The Land of Lincoln

This is a fun memoir of a modern-day search for the real Abraham Lincoln. In childhood, Andrew Ferguson had been a Lincoln buff but had developed other interests in adulthood. The enigmatic and “shut-mouth” Lincoln provided pundits an open field for speculation. As a result, a plethora of interpretations have been tossed around that purport to explain his personality, beliefs, motivations, administration, family, and even sexual orientation. Glorifying tributes stand beside hate filled censures. Ferguson trekked across the country to get a fix on the man. He traversed the Lincoln Heritage Trail with his family, visited major and not-so-major memorials, interviewed Lincoln collectors, gawked at Lincoln impersonators, and talked to guides, academics, and park rangers. Lincoln remained elusive, but Ferguson’s wit and lively writing style kept the quest entertaining and educational … although the reader may learn more about modern-day Americans than they learn about our sixteenth president.

I enjoyed the journey. Thanks, Andrew, for taking me along on the ride.

(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)

The Lincoln Myth by Steve Berry

When writing a historical book, sometimes you need a recess from hard history. I thought The Lincoln Myth by Steve Berry would provide an appropriate break. Instead of relaxing, I found the book annoying. The Lincoln Myth interlaces Mormon history and a trendy premise about Abraham Lincoln into a modern-day thriller. The premise probably came from The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, a popular 2009 book that contended that the South had a right to secede, and the Civil War was unnecessary. DiLorenzo went further stating that eliminating slavery was not a goal of the conflict and only afterwards used as a justification. I believe this premise an over-simplification, but I’ll postpone explaining why until I review The Real Lincoln.

What drew me to the book was the Lincoln and Constitution history interwoven into the story. I wrote my own Lincoln mystery/thriller (The Shut Mouth Society) and a novelization of the Constitutional Convention (Tempest at Dawn), so I found it jarring to read Madison’s convention notes and finding material I knew wasn’t present. Berry had a viewpoint with little evidence to support that his viewpoint was correct, so he altered existing documentation and invented entirely new documentation. I objected less to the invented documentation because it disappeared with a novelist sleight of hand. Perfectly legitimate. Altering Madison’s notes, however, seemed lazy and unnecessary to support his plot. Berry was making a political point by modifying the historical record. If omitted, the plot could have moved along the same path without a jarring interruption that defiled Madison's notes.

As a thriller, The Lincoln Myth succeeds but not as well as Berry's other novels. 

Bitterly Divided: The South's Inner Civil War

 

Bitterly Divided by David Williams makes sense. If the political establishment in a bunch of states decided to secede, there would obviously be inhabitants who retained a stronger loyalty to the United States of America. After all, they had been proud U.S. citizens for their entire life. I bet you saw a but coming. The but is that although Williams presents voluminous evidence of insurgence within the CSA, it is not clear that it materially hampered the Confederacy’s war efforts until the last year or so.

The catchphrase, ‘rich man’s war, poor man’s fight,’ may have been a truism, but Southern men continued to fight until victory became hopeless or they received news from home that their families were starving. Williams contends that slaveholders masterminded the war but, for the most part, non-slave holders fought it. Three-fourths of southern whites owned no slaves, so arithmetic alone proves Williams correct. 

Statistical data shows that by every economic measure, the North far outperformed the South. The only area where the South exceeded the North was in income disparity. Williams writes: “On the Civil War’s eve, nearly half the South’s personal income went to just over a thousand families.” The rich were very rich and few in number. The uneducated poor white were as omnipresent as slaves. 

At the start of the war, a recruitment broadside oddly read, “To arms! Our Southern soil must be defended. We must not stop to ask who brought about the war, who is at fault, but let us go and do battle… and then settle the question who is to blame.”

Today, that poster may not appear convincing, but decades of Democrat propaganda had bred hatred for Yankees and instilled fear of “Black Republicans.” Repeatedly, poor whites were told that freed slaves would “come into competition, associate with them and their children as equals—be allowed to testify in court against them—sit on juries with them, march to the ballot box by their sides, and participate in the choice of their rulers—claim social equality with them—and ask the hands of their children in marriage.”

When the conflict began, relentless propaganda claimed the North had invaded the South, but the Confederate Army was a reality well before Manassas. Prior to that opening battle, the North had only resisted Confederate confiscation of United States property in the seceded states. Still, men believed that they went to fight an enemy that had violated the hallowed land of the South. Why?

Jefferson Davis believed slavery gave every white person an elevated position in society independent of their lot in life. Were the poor fighting to retain this artificially elevated position? Not sure, but I’ll keep reading to find the answer.

(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)

Can you find the difference in the photographs?

 

If you said five were in America and one in communist China, you would be correct. 

Respond by email to claim your prize ... a free mask.

Democrats are not as good as their word.

A version of this article was originally published at American Spectator

 

Democrats sure know how to talk.

They espouse lofty goals, heartfelt sympathy, and strident vows to instill fairness for all Americans.  They promise to fulfill every aspiration and repair all grievances.  Democrats unselfconsciously paint themselves as the good guys … and Republicans as rapacious villains.

However, when Democrats act, it’s counter to their good words.  Here’s a few examples.

They profess support for the working class but act to harm their livelihood. 

When outsourcing became the rage, the working class needed a powerful advocate.  Democrats abandoned them.  Instead of championing industrial union members, they dropped them like hot potatoes to advocate for unionized government employees.  Secondly, the livelihoods of the middleclass fell when Democrats encouraged illegal immigration.  The one-two punch devastated the American working class.

They say they’re fighting voter suppression but rig the system to steal elections. 

Democrats push every change making registration and voting easier, fight every check against voter fraud, support every change that opens a new path to fraud, push to legalize vote harvesting, and fight the cleansing of voter rolls.  Democrat controlled states and cities provides sanctuary, benefits, and driver licenses to illegals.  They talk a good game, but in truth, Democrats act against the principle of fair elections.

They profess support for the downtrodden but act to harm their future.

Democrats have controlled many major cities and a few states for decades.  These bastions of progressivism are stark examples of how they govern.  Most Americans who are deprived of hope reside inside these districts.  Words don’t put food on the table, keep children safe, or provide the tools for a better future.  But words are all they get.

They preach social justice but act inconsistent with the goal.

Equal opportunity for all?  Not really.  Democrats deny or rip away support if anyone speaks contrary to the Democrat Party Line. Political obedience determines social justice. They talk big in support of LBQ and women’s issues but import intolerant cultures who do them harm. Democrats ruthlessly pursue Republicans accused of sexual crimes but stubbornly cover for accused Democrats. They promise affordable higher education but direct government money to college administrations who keep raising tuition. Social justice is not really about people. It’s a misanthropic tool to gather up political power.

They claim concern for pandemic deaths but act to increase death count.

Democrats say they want fewer virus deaths, but New York, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (all Democrat run states) made it illegal to turn away or test nursing home returnees, knowing full well that over a third of virus deaths occur in nursing homes.  They say they’re horrified at the death count but provide financial incentives for doctors to attribute every death to the virus.  Additionally, lockdowns and vaccination mandates have increased the risk for every other terminal ailment through non-diagnosis, non-treatment, and delayed surgeries.

They say nobody is above the law but constructed a duel justice system.

Democrats holler incessantly that no one is above the law, but shield elected Democrats, illegal aliens, and convicted criminals from the law.  They release prisoners back into society while arresting Americans for overzealously protesting government officials.  They coddle illegals and give them rights and benefits American citizens don’t enjoy.  Elected Democrat officials are seldom indicted despite endless exposed crimes, government corruption everyone can see, and grievous violations of our national security laws.  Democrats clamor for equal justice, but their actions built a two-tiered justice system.  One for them … and another for the rest of us.

They tout democracy but act totalitarian

Democrats invoke the Framers, the Bible, and altruistic intentions to prove their democratic bona fides.  Not only do they portray themselves as the true champions of democracy, but Republican opponents are Nazis, fascists, murders, racists, and haters of every imaginable hue. Yet their actions speak otherwise.  They cheer the police state tactics of the FBI, see nothing amiss in federal agencies working on their behalf, and ignore the wishes of the populous that go against their doctrines.  Nothing exposes leadership style more than a crisis.  Republican governors impose sensible restraints for the shortest time possible.  Democrat governors impose draconian measures beyond CDC guidelines and extend them indefinitely.

Talk is cheap.  Actions speak louder than words.  Put your money where your mouth is.  Your word is your bond.  All these axioms are foreign to Democrats.  Instead they believe perception is reality.  A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.  Principles are malleable to the moment.  And a sucker’s born every minute.

Fortunately for the United States of America, the public is catching on.  Perhaps the greatest gift of President Trump has bestowed upon this great nation is to expose Democrat Party leaders for who they really are.  It’s not pretty a pretty sight.

Is the word "all" the most important word in the Declaration of Independence?

 

Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were interesting characters. Exactly the type of characters a novelist needs to carry a story. In writing Maelstrom, I had a scene where Lincoln addresses Congress after a recess. (As customary at the time, his address was read by a clerk.) Not much has happened during the recess. Eleven states had seceded from the Union, Fort Sumter had been bombarded and surrendered, a piece of Virginia had been occupied, and Lincoln had exceeded his executive powers to spend unauthorized money, build an army, and suspend habeas corpus among other things.

He desperately needed Congress to backfill behind him.

This was a crucial address. Important for Lincoln and the country. The address was not one of his well-known speeches, but I was struck by the clarity and simplicity of the explanation of why he took these actions.

Lincoln said it was a struggle for maintaining a form of government “whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men—to lift artificial weights from all shoulders—to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all—to afford all an unfettered start, and a fair chance in the race of life.”

On the cusp of war, Lincoln repeatedly used the word “all.” He had previously stated that this was the most important word in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence and had reputedly written that word over and over again on pieces of paper.

I cannot think of a loftier goal for government. Perhaps in this age of divisiveness, we should all write the word “all” over and over again.

Lincoln on the Verge, Ted Widmer

Lincoln on the Verge, Thirteen Days to Washington

Over 15,000 books have been written about Abraham Lincoln, supposedly more than any other person except Jesus. This tower of books at the Ford's Theatre Center for Education and Leadership is a tribute to the man and the authors who have written about him. (This is actually a metal sculpture using replicas of about half the books.) The Center is across the street from Ford’s Theater where the president was assassinated.

Because I intend to add to the pile, I own about forty of these books. Every Lincoln author looks for a unique perspective. Some see themselves as myth busters. Others delve into a niche of his supposed psyche to unearth a differently tempered person. Responsible historians frequently zero in on a single event or unusual theme to add fresh insights. Entire books are dedicated to a single speech, battle, or political issue.

Ted Widmer made a great choice of subject matter. Lincoln on the Verge concentrates on the thirteen days it took Lincoln to journey by train from Springfield to Washington. It’s a fascinating story and it illustrates the political savvy of this supposed country bumpkin. Widmer introduces us to the president-elect as he travels across a great land he knows will soon be thrown into turmoil. What could Lincoln accomplish on this tedious trip? You’ll discover he could do quite a bit. He engineered the journey of the Presidential Special so he could more easily save the nation after inauguration.

Widmer has a clear and concise writing style that keeps the narrative moving, and his matter-of-fact presentation allows the reader to mine for new insights without being led to the trough. 

If you’re a Lincoln enthusiast, or merely curious, you’ll enjoy this book.

              (This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)

War on the Waters, James M. McPherson

 

With the exception of the Monitor vs. Merrimack (CSS Virginia), naval battles get short shrift in Civil War books. McPherson certainly fills that gap with War on the Waters, The Union and Confederate Navies, 1861-1865. Land battles were certainly decisive, but the Union may have lost the war without Gideon Welles and the Navy Department. McPherson even makes a strong argument that Rear Admiral David Glasgow Farragut deserves to be ranked with generals Grant and Sherman when giving credit for the Union victory.

Inventions and innovations by both the Confederate States and the United States revolutionized naval warfare. Steam-powered ships, screw propeller driven ships, ironclads, submarines, weaponry, and naval tactics all made major advancement during those four years. By Appomattox, the United States owned the largest navy in the world, and arguably the most technologically advanced.

War on the Waters does an admirable job of describing blue water and brown water (river) battles and in explaining the significance of each clash. I found the battles that required cooperation between the Army and Navy of particular interest. As an added bonus, International law on blockades is more fully described than in other history books.

McPherson’s no nonsense writing style can sometimes verge on dull, but he always pulls the reader back to the narrative in the nick of time.

I recommend this book to all those who have an interest in the Civil War, naval battles, technology advancement, or military politics. War on the Waters is informative and a good read.

(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)

A Short History of the Confederate States of America

 

After the Civil War, Jefferson Davis spent two years in prison without trial. He was released on bail and a year and a half later, the government finally dropped the treason charges against him. In 1877 he retired to Beauvoir, where he wrote, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. This was a two-volume tome of over 1,500 pages. I did not read this book. I tried, but I kept following asleep. Luckily, ten years later, Davis wrote A Short History of the Confederate States of America. Roughly one-third in length, “A Short History” covers the same ground and is more readable.

Davis writing style is clear for modern readers, but I would recommend a good understanding of the war to provide context for his narrative. That said, for a thorough understanding of a major historical event, it always best to get the story from the horse’s mouth. The Davis perspective may be biased, but those perspectives did not change between the war and the writing of his memoir. That consistency makes this book valuable for understanding the motivations for war.

Davis extols victories and offers strained excuses for errors and failures. In Davis’ mind, nothing was his fault, the Confederacy was always honorable, the Union always vile. For those not imbued with The Cause mythology, this heavy-handed prejudice can be off-putting, but I found it helps understand the ethos of the period.

Most history books are written by winners. If you don’t study the losers, then you have an incomplete picture. An example would be the hallowed Federalist Papers. There is a collection of opposition opinion pieces called the Anti-Federalist Papers. I suggest reading both and I highly recommend Jefferson Davis’ A Short History of the Confederate States of America.

(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)

America is Too Good for Democrats

 

Democrats dislike America. In their minds, it needs to radically change, so they’ve been trying to start a domestic war. Civil, Class, or identity group--it doesn’t matter. Until recently, this has been a cold war with a few hot spots. Democrats are disappointed because past campaigns did not go the way they wanted. Occupy Wall Street did not incite class warfare, Black Lives Matter did not start a race war, and Antifa did not expose a vast cadre of neo-Nazis lurking in the background.

What happened? Why hasn’t their ground game worked? Simple. Americans are not ignorant, selfish, and hateful. That would be projection. The left doesn’t understand their own country. America is too good for them. They remain in their bubbles and safe spaces and view the rest of us as caricatures. They see us as bad people. Democrats believe we’re a bunch of illiterate boobs who can be easily herded in any direction they desire. They’ve swallowed their own demonization narrative hook, line, and sinker.

Democrats had hoped to provoke bad behavior on the right.  With near-absolute control of the media, provocations on the left can be downplayed while any reaction from the right can be relentlessly condemned from rooftops, podiums, and studios. This is a mindless battle fought with self-doubt, fear, and loathing. The emotions of destruction. In their view, they must destroy our nation to save it. To make their quixotic vision a reality, the existing selfish system must be burned to the ground so society can be rebuilt based upon the principles of social justice.

Trump Derangement Syndrome infected the Left because he scrubbed the speed from their nefarious doings and executed an abrupt U-turn. Darn. They had been making such good progress. Trump had to be stopped. Even before inauguration, Democrats rejected Donald Trump as a lawfully elected president. They vowed to resist every policy, every action, and every statement that came from the White House. They spied on his campaign and his administration. The FBI Investigated him at least twice, a special prosecutor tried to find indictable offenses, and Congress did their darndest to find dirt.  Nothing. When the Russia hoax failed to oust him from office, they tried impeachment to no avail. So, they took to insurrection in the streets. Antifa and BLM violence increased until chaos engulfed the entire nation. Street thugs maimed and killed law enforcement officers, destroyed property, and beat on passersby. Under the pretense this was peaceful protest, rioters were loudly cheered on by Democrat office holders and their allies in the media and Hollywood.

Still no civil war. Where were those rednecks? The Left had no choice but to escalate. They brought in a pandemic and hammered fear into every waking moment. They used this fear to redefine how we vote so Democrats could send Trump to the showers. But … no questions, no alternative narratives. All opposition must be squashed, or their flimsy cover stories wouldn’t hold. The first steps were easy. They shut down wrong-thinking on social media, marginalized resistors, removed conservative media's ability to boost their content, and coerced power brokers of every ilk to turn a blind eye. Everyone marched in lockstep.

Not enough. Americans had shown that they could awaken in dire situations. They needed an event. Something so abhorrent that normal people would be thrown into confusion, doubt, and mourning. The right had already shown that they wouldn’t rise to mere taunts, so the only recourse was to lure them into a compromising position.

So Democrats stage-managed an insurrection. Trump demonstrators were invited into the capitol and guided to the inner sanctum. Despite the absence of weapons, little wear on the capitol, and the violence coming from provocateurs and the capitol police, Democrats painted a national picture of an insurrection that came within a hairbreadth of toppling the government. January 6th cemented the departure of Donald Trump. Any questions about the authenticity of the election were dissolved.

All that remained was righting the train and getting it back on track.

Then it all fell apart … again. They forgot President Obama’s warning. “Don't underestimate Joe's ability to (expletive) things up.”

A version of this column was first published on American Thinker

Three cheers for Adam Smith, inventor of the world’s most effective contraceptive.

World Average GDP per Capita

You may remember Adam Smith as the 18th Century inventor of capitalism. You’d be right. But he also solved the problem of over-population. Capitalism is the greatest creator of wealth in history and wealthy families and nations have lower fertility rates. 

Let’s take the wealth side first. Think of Singapore versus Venezuela. Singapore has zero natural resources and Venezuela sits on one of the greatest oil reserves in the world. Or consider North versus South Korea. Or the People's Republic of China versus Taiwan. Or, in its day, East versus West Germany. 

 Capitalism beats a state run economy every single time. No contest.

Now, about those fertility rates. Look at the chart of U.S. birth rates in relation to income. Pretty obvious. The richer the family, the fewer the kids. It doesn’t matter why, the indisputable fact is that higher income, lowers the birth rate.

Does this relationship hold internationally? It does. Our indisputable fact went global: the higher the gross national product, the lower the birth rate.

Put these two observable phenomena together and you solve the Left’s most emotive fixation: global population control. Yet they reliably turn their back on capitalism because they distrust a system that makes some people richer than themselves. If the sustainability of Earth is an existential threat, then why discard obvious solutions? Many Leftists don’t think, others naively follow the catechism, but some purposely craft rationalizations for irrationality. 

Take population control: instead a real answer to their obsession, they promote every form of non-propagational sex, rabid feminism that separates men and women, people bunched up in tiny living quarters unfit for a family, ridicule of female homemakers, family dissolution, government dictates of family size, and when all else fails, they demand contraceptives and abortion for perverts who insist on an archaic relationship.

I sometimes wonder if anthropophobia is why Leftists frequently defend Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and other tyrants who impose ruthless forms of population control. (Hitler seems to be the only socialist they refuse to give a pass for murdering his own populous.)

Try Googling “birth rates versus GDP.” You’ll get hits on studies, papers, and programs to reduce population in order to increase wealth. Backward. They’re convoluting cause and effect. Why? Because they loathe capitalism. It’s not allowed in their toolbox. So, without thinking, they flip cause and effect. In the Leftist’s world, there are many cures worse than the disease. For example, they hate carbon dioxide, but lose their stuff if carbon-free nuclear energy is mentioned. If the means are blasphemous, the end remains delusive. 

Leftists cannot accept that the surest path to population control is to promote capitalism in every corner of the world. In fact, capitalism cures pollution, hunger, housing, illness, and even throws a monkey-wrench into totalitarianism. Just ask the Pilgrims. They got all that stuff for the first Thanksgiving after they tossed socialism in the ash heap.

But the Left won’t alter course. They remain bound to an ideology that promises a dreamland … but never delivers. 

Don’t blame them. They can’t help themselves. It’s in their nature.

The Impending Crisis of the South, Hinton Rowan Helper

The Impending Crisis of the South, How to Meet It
Hinton Rowan Helper

This book appealed to me for four reasons. 1) It was written in 1857 by a participant of the era. 2) It was an anti-slavery book written by a Southerner, 3) the book created a movement called Helperism, 4) Lincoln appointed Helper consul to Argentina, which meant he had probably read the book. (Further evidence that Lincoln had read the book is a section of his Cooper Union Address which far more eloquently echoes one of Helper’s commentaries.)

When writing a historical novel, it’s crucial to get inside the heads of the people who actually experienced the period. One technique is to read contemporaneous writings, including books, periodicals, newspapers, and speeches.

Helper’s thesis is that slavery harms economic growth, inventiveness, and the middleclass. He uses extensive census statistics to solidly prove his case.  The overwhelming quantity of data is convincing … but also dull. Luckily, the numbers can be scanned after the reader gets used to his presentation style. If you are interested in the data, I would recommend a print format instead of an e-book.

The Impending Crisis of the South provides an interesting and pertinent perspective on the economics of slavery.

(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)