Lincoln Emancipated: The President and the Politics of Race

By Brian R. Dirck, ed. (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2007).  Pp 208, $32.00, ISBN 978-0-87580-359-3

Review originally published in Ohio Valley History 7:3(Fall 2007):81-82.

Somewhere there is a history professor reciting the familiar refrain: “Historical interpretations change over time.”  History is not a dusty relic destined to deteriorate on forgotten basement bookshelves.  No, history is a vibrant and exciting field because it is always changing.  Lincoln Emancipated: The President and the Politics of Race offers a striking example.  

"Once upon a time,” writes Allen C. Guelzo, “almost every African American home or business had, hanging on its walls, a portrait of Abraham Lincoln.” (p. vii)  African Americans once supported the Republican Party because it was the party of Lincoln, just as icons from Booker T. Washington to Jackie Robinson “hailed Lincoln as their model and champion.” (p. vii)           

But not even Lincoln can escape the shifting currents of the historical profession.  In the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, the New Left ushered in a group of historians who tried to transform the Great Emancipator into the Great Racist.  Lerone Bennett framed the debate in 1968 when he asked, “Was Lincoln a White Supremacist?”  His interpretation reached full maturity in 2000 with the publication of Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream.

I have never seen a book elicit such a response.  Scholars, students, and the public began asking a once unthinkable question, “Was Lincoln a racist?” 

Lincoln Emancipated may well represent the first wave of critical reaction to the Great Racist thesis.  Brian R. Dirck, the editor of this volume, is quickly establishing himself as a rising star in the field of Lincoln studies.  He has certainly assembled an impressive cast of scholars in this collection of essays.    

Kenneth J. Winkle opens the volume by placing Lincoln in his proper historical context.  Born in a slave state, Lincoln lived the majority of his adult-life in a state that restricted African Americans from settling within its borders.  Similarly, Dirck offers a useful reminder not to exclude Lincoln’s chosen profession from the conversation.  Lincoln practiced law for a quarter-century, was involved in over 5,000 legal cases (of which only 34 involved African Americans), and both the U.S. Constitution, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, protected America’s peculiar institution.  Kevin R. C. Gutzman’s essay takes a comparative approach and places Lincoln’s controversial support of colonization alongside another American who did not believe white and black Americans could live together peacefully, Thomas Jefferson.

Make no mistake, Lincoln Emancipated is not a work of hagiography—contextualization is not absolution.  James N. Leiker’s essay provides the best evidence.  He expands the discussion of Lincoln and race to include not only African Americans, but also Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asians.  “Assuming that his public record reflects his private sentiments,” Leiker concludes, “Abraham Lincoln believed the nations of Asia and Latin America to be backward, favored expansionist policies onto Indian lands at the expense of tribal sovereignty, and thought African Americans incapable of self-government.” (p. 83)  Essays by Michael Vorenberg and Dennis K. Boman round out this balanced examination of Lincoln and race. 

Phillip S. Paludan’s essay stands out from the crowd.  “Was Lincoln a racist?” he begins.  Better yet: “What makes a racist?” “Would it be legitimate to call someone a racist who used the “N” word ten times?  Over what period?  How vehemently?  To whom?” (p. 29)  It is fascinating to follow Paludan through his process of questioning sources, sifting through layers of meaning, and sharpening the focus on easily-distorted images.  In the end, he reveals a Lincoln that looks strangely human—he was a complex, multi-dimensional being who was not all one thing or the other.       

Lincoln Emancipated takes on large questions from a variety of angles, challenges familiar assumptions, and offers a number of intriguing interpretations.  In other words, it demonstrates why the historical profession is so exciting.  

Samuel P. Wheeler, Southern Illinois University