"Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin

I just couldn't walk away from the 19th century without another look at its most historic figure.  Doris Kearns Goodwin's book was fantastic and illuminating.

Everyone knows Lincoln's story as the great Emancipator of slaves in the American south and victor of the Civil War.  But the details are endlessly fascinating.  And as with the American Revolution, it's shocking to see just how close we came to losing the war.  How different would the world be if either went the other way?

Lincoln's political presence-of-mind made the difference.  Although he certainly wanted to end slavery, he knew from the start of the Civil War that he could not define the war on that divisive issue.  His political instincts required him to define the war on a more important issue: The preservation of the Union.  He stated unequivocally that that was the sole purpose of the war.

Why was that more important than ending slavery?  As the world's first republic based on free, democratic principles - the Great Experiment as the Founding Father's called it - the world watched the successes and failures of the U.S. with a critical eye.  If the experiment should succeed, more nations around the world would adopt similar systems.  Political liberty would increase as a world-view, as it had since the close of the American Revolution.  Freedom - at the time a new concept around the world - would reign for more and more people.

But if the Great Experiment were to fail - if the American South was allowed to secede and form a separate nation with its own ideals, then the world would move away from liberty, away from democratic principles.  In the long run, that would have implications on a global scale, effecting the freedom of far more people around the world than just a few million slaves in the American South.

Why could Lincoln not pursue both objectives, the permanence of the Union and the ending of slavery?  For military reasons the Union needed the border states like Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri to NOT secede.  If they joined the Confederacy it would tip the balance of power dramatically away from the Union.  The South would have won the war with relative ease.

After three years of war, however, Lincoln realized that those same border states were not helping the Union's cause enough to justify appeasing them by leaving the abolition of slavery off the table.  He also realized - and this decision was hugely controversial - that adding newly freed slaves to the Union's army would tip the balance militarily, and potentially instigate slave insurrections across the South, further weakening the Confederacy.

That decisions resulted in the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863.  Much of Lincoln's cabinet thought it was the wrong decision.  Lincoln took incredible risk politically with his Emancipation.  It could have easily failed, and months went by before it did tip the balance of power towards the Union.

In the end, of course, the Emancipation did play a major role in turning the tide of the war.  Perhaps it played the single biggest role.  The rise of General Grant in the latter stages of the war, and the massive war financing measures led by Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase, also played critical roles.

I've always thought of Jefferson - the great visionary and declarer of freedom - as my favorite American president.  Now maybe I'm replacing him with Lincoln.  Maybe.  I've also started a tremendous biographer of Teddy Roosevelt, whose stock is quickly rising.  We shall see.