Open ‘The Case’
To tell the truth, I was on the hunt for another book. I hadn’t heard of The Case of Abraham Lincoln and I was, I thought, on a mini-break from biography. But there it was. Such luck is reason enough to frequent bookstores and libraries. The magic doesn’t happen online. At least not to me.
“The Case of Abraham Lincoln,” written by historian Julie M. Fenster, takes place during an important year, 1856, in the then patchy political life of Abraham Lincoln. Fenster credibly chronicles Lincoln’s emergence as she skillfully weaves in an enticing story of a murder that gripped his community. I highly recommend the book and respected book authorities do, too. Kirkus gave “The Case” a “starred review” — Kirkus, by the way, is stingy with its stars — calling the book “marvelously insightful.”
I enjoyed the book so much I wrote Ms. Fenster and asked her if she would subject herself to five questions from yours truly. I warned her that my queries would not likely be among the most insightful posed to her about the book, as I am no Lincoln scholar. But she made lemonade from my lemons.
As I understand it, the only person who has been written about more than Abraham Lincoln is Jesus Christ. How did you come up with this fresh angle?
Lincoln was the only president who wasn’t a senator, governor, general or vice-president before going to the White House. He had a job — a regular job as a working lawyer — and that’s a fascinating aspect of his life. I wanted to highlight it by honing in on one season (mid-1856) to see the texture of his career.
As a lawyer, he didn’t know who would walk in the office door or meet him at a distant courthouse with a problem. That resulted in an astonishingly wide array of cases, which he balanced with his own private political machinations. Over the course of that span, Lincoln was trying to earn a living, and figuring out a way to get ahead, just like a million other people, then or now.
As to why there are so many books on Lincoln, that is a good question. The country began with the Founding Fathers, about a dozen of whom have come down in history as infinitely fascinating individuals. But those Founding Fathers, for all their remarkable traits, couldn’t settle the issue of slavery and left it for later generations. After many years — four score and four years, to be exact — Lincoln was the one American who ultimately had the inner strength to look the monster in the eye. So, perhaps one reason that so many books have been written about Lincoln is that he was an individual, just one person, completing the work of a whole range of original Founding Fathers.
I would appreciate hearing any details you are willing to share about the research process. For starters, given the abundance of resources, and the diversity of opinion among scholars about Lincoln, how did you know when to stop?
Because I placed a particular time-frame — March to November, 1856 — under a microscope, I found original source material that had previously been unpublished, passed over by broader biographies. I depended almost entirely on it: contemporary letters, newspaper articles, and recollections. I was especially enthralled by the recollections that made Lincoln’s so-called “Lost Speech” come to life.
In addition to “The Case of Abraham Lincoln” you have written other critically acclaimed works of historical nonfiction. What advice can you offer to those who want to write narrative history in a compelling way?
Remember to work only for the reader. Try to put other writers or scholars out of mind, even though it may be tempting to try to impress them in some arcane respect. The real trap, though, is to get locked into the position of doing public relations for the subject: as though the author has to promote the person or event at the core of the book. The next thing you know, every paragraph is run through a screen for its potential to reflect negatively on the subject. That’s no fun to write — or to read.
You provide the reader a nuanced perspective of Lincoln’s political beliefs and motivations. Given your expert take on Lincoln, what do you think his view of American politics, circa 2008, would be?
In terms of political sport, he would have reveled in this season of presidential campaigning, with its combination of jousting personalities and lieutenants behind the scenes, adding and re-adding delegate counts. Lincoln’s capacity for political calculation was unmatched and, indeed, he prevailed in 1860, a season even more convoluted that ours. He might wish that the candidates and the journalists who cover them remain focused on the serious issues of our day — but then, there were tricks and mud-slinging distractions in his day, too. Probably the biggest difference, the one that might surprise him most, lays with the electorate. Lincoln might have been dismayed at the short attention span of the average voter — in his day, political speeches lasted hours.
Lincoln is brought back to life and you are offered ten minutes. What’s your first question?
Who did you trust?
Post script: I’d like to think I will be motivated to make this a semi-regular feature. Subject suggestions are welcome. Thanks to Ms. Fenster for her time and insights.
This post was added on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 by Tom Swift at 12:29 and is filed under Five Questions.
