Book Description
A major history of Civil War America through the lens of its two towering figures: Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
"My husband considered you a dear friend," Mary Todd Lincoln wrote to Frederick Douglass in the weeks after Lincoln's assassination. The frontier lawyer and the former slave, the cautious politician and the fiery reformer, the president and the most famous black man in America—their lives traced different paths that finally met in the bloody landscape of secession, Civil War, and emancipation. Opponents at first, they gradually became allies, each influenced by and attracted to the other. Their three meetings in the White House signaled a profound shift in the direction of the Civil War, and in the fate of the United States. In this first book to draw the two together, James Oakes has written a masterful narrative history. He brings these two iconic figures to life and sheds new light on the central issues of slavery, race, and equality in Civil War America.
Customer Reviews:
Puts the radical ideologist and the political realist in historical perspective.......2007-05-30
One of the easiest things to do, especially on the web, is to take a highly regarded leader of the past, say, Abraham Lincoln, pull a few of his quotes or actions out of their historical context, and supposedly "prove" how horrible that leader actually was. In contrast, author James Oakes explains Lincoln to us postmoderns the way an historian should - by reminding us of Lincoln's circumstances and explaining Lincoln's overarching purposes. Oakes does this without resorting to making Lincoln a saint. According to Oakes' compellingly-supported evidence, Lincoln refused to compromise two essential commitments - to antislavery and to the American political system. Lincoln would not compromise his antislavery position to get more votes, nor would he compromise his oaths to uphold the Constitution to undermine slavery. This dual commitment of Lincoln's goes very far in helping us understand why Lincoln limited his goal to preventing the spread of slavery before he became president, why he didn't just go ahead and free all the slaves when he became president, why he moved slowly towards emancipation during the war, etc. Furthermore, the author's discussion of Lincoln's overwhelming desire to change the hearts and minds of Americans about slavery instead of merely forcing through political change regardless of wider support was especially useful. As the "Republican" in the title, Lincoln wanted a government that represented the will of the people; therefore, the will of the people needed to be converted before the government could make radical change. The fact that Lincoln helped accomplish this more widespread change is quite a testament to his legacy of leadership.
The "Radical" in the title is another great American, Frederick Douglass. Unlike Lincoln's, Douglass' reputation typically is not in dispute. Most of us love Douglass, and for good reason. Oakes doesn't tarnish Douglass' reputation, but he does help us to understand how Douglass' singular commitment to antislavery/antiracism, as compared to Lincoln's dual commitment explained above, often put Douglass at odds with the political process AND caused Douglass to speak out so vehemently against politicians like Lincoln. From Douglass' perspective, only immediate emancipation and egalitarianism would serve justice. Thus, by necessity, Douglass would oppose and criticize Lincoln - that is, until the two men met.
One of the reviewers below critiques Oakes for supposedly overstating the relationship between the two men. I believe this critique is misplaced because Oakes never claimed to be writing primarily about the interpersonal relationship between the two. Instead, he's writing about the interplay of the radical ideology of one, and the antislavery politics of the other. Also, I think that Oakes analyzes the relationship between Brown and Douglass comprehensively, not simplistically, as a reviewer below seems to believe.
As a person who teaches history at the college level, and as a person who enjoys reading history for fun, I would recommend this book. I intend to make it one of my required texts for my survey American history course, alongside Frederick Douglass' autobiography.
What changed Frederick Douglass' mind.......2007-04-24
Author James Oakes tells us this: in 1860 Frederick Douglass wrote of the upcoming presidential election "I cannot support Lincoln." But in 1888, Douglass said he had met no man "possessing a more godlike nature than did Abraham Lincoln." What had happened?
Oakes gives us a quick glance at his hypothesis within the subtitle of his book: the triumph of antislavery politics. As he explains, this doesn't apply to Lincoln. Lincoln was always an anti-slavery politician, although his thinking on how and how fast slavery should be destroyed changed over time. But with regards to the use of politics as the means to abolish slavery, the man whose thinking moved more was Frederick Douglass. And although the two men share the billing in Oakes' title, this is far more a book about Douglass than Lincoln. It is a book about the evolution of the reasoning of Frederick Douglass.
That evolution, as Oakes paints it, began for Douglass from the belief that the issue of slavery transcended politics and the compromises that came with it. Oakes traces how Douglass the reformer began to be drawn into the political arena, alienating the abolitionists who had first supported his career. But still he carried with him that insistence on absolutism. He brooked no delays, no strategic maneuverings. Lincoln and the Republicans were gradualists, and therefore were deemed irresolute and untrustworthy.
After the Civil War began, Douglass found even more reasons for outrage. Lincoln refused to immediately emancipate the slaves. The President even countermanded the Union generals who issued proclamations freeing the slaves in the territories they conquered. Lincoln had not yet issued a retaliation policy against confederates who captured and often executed southern blacks who had joined the Union army. Oakes gives us deft insights into Lincoln's thinking on all these issues. Douglass, who apparently was not himself an acolyte of consistency, bounced back and forth in his electoral attitudes. But he never let up in his pressure on Lincoln nor in his condemnation of the President's lack of strong steps against slave-holding interests.
Then, first in 1863, Lincoln meets with Douglass. About a year later, at Lincoln's request, they meet a second time and Lincoln asks Douglass to draw up a plan to get as many slaves freed under the Emancipation Proclamation as possible. Over that span Douglass' thinking with regards to Lincoln undergoes a dramatic shift. Afterwards, his criticism of Lincoln essentially stops.
Oakes describes these meetings, including a third just after Lincoln's second inaugural address, in as much detail as consistent with the small format of the book. He relies largely on Douglass' own recollections. Oakes also gives us dramatic retellings of other events in Douglass' career that illustrate the development of his thinking, but also the refinement of his skills as a political strategist.
We are still left wondering what exactly was the effect of those meetings with Lincoln. Was Douglass simply overwhelmed, as others were, by the force of Lincoln's understated humaneness and thereby convinced of the President's genuine concern for blacks? Or did Lincoln persuade Douglass that his political methods were the best possible under the evolving circumstances? Or did Lincoln flatter Douglass into acquiescence, especially in enlisting his help during that second meeting?
These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Oakes in no way downplays the significance of these meetings. But I believe he wants us to see that what happened was entirely consistent with the evolution of Douglass' thinking with regards to politics. As a reformer, he saw it his job to always keep the pressure on. But where and how best to apply that pressure --- that changed in his meetings with Lincoln. And, near the end of Douglass' life, when he raised Lincoln to sainthood, he was still putting the pressure on. But he was using Lincoln's reputation to apply that pressure against the backsliding that the post-Reconstruction era had brought. Douglass had found a way to combine the duties of a reformer with a sophisticated instinct for politics.
"The Radical and the Republican" is not a dramatic retelling of events. It is certainly not a co-biography of its two principals. But it does have drama. That drama comes from taking Douglass' thinking seriously and mapping out its development and growing political sophistication. To do this, it uses comparisons with Lincoln's thinking and the interplay of the two men's principles and actions. But it's not by accident that Douglass comes first in the book's title and its cover. There are many books about Lincoln. This is a book about Frederick Douglass.
The Politician and the Reformer.......2007-03-22
Abraham Lincoln (1809 --1865) and Frederick Douglass (1818 -- 1895)are American heroes with each exemplifying a unique aspect of the American spirit. In his recent study, "The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics" (2007), Professor James Oakes traces the intersecting careers of both men, pointing out their initial differences and how their goals and visions ultimately converged. Oakes is Graduate School Humanities Professor and Professor of History at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has written extensively on the history of slavery in the Old South.
Oakes reminds the reader of how much Lincoln and Douglass originally shared. Lincoln and Douglass were self-made, self-educated, and ambitious, and each rose to success from humble backgrounds. Douglass, of course, was an escaped slave. Douglass certainly and Lincoln most likely detested slavery from his youngest days. But Lincoln from his young manhood was a consummate politican devoted to compromise, consensus-building, moderation and indirection. Douglass was a reformer who spoke and wrote eloquently and with passion for the abolition of slavery and for equal rights for African Americans.
Much of Oakes's book explores the difficult subject of Lincoln's attitude towards civil rights -- as opposed simply to the ending of slavery -- and of how Lincoln's views developed during the Civil War. Oakes uses Douglass as a foil for Lincoln beginning with the Lincoln -- Stephen Douglas debates in Illinois in 1858. Steven Douglas tried hard to link Lincoln to Frederick Douglass and to abolitionism. He claimed that Lincoln favored equal rights for Negroes and raised the spectre of intermarriage between white women and black men. Portions of Lincoln's responses to Stephen Douglas were almost as distressing, as Lincoln carefully avoided supporting civil equality between the races and stressed instead the evil of slavery and the need to stop its expansion. It is not surprising that Douglass the abolitionist was ambivalent and mistrustful of Lincoln in the early years, doubting his committment to the cause of ending slavery.
Douglass continued to distrust President Lincoln. Douglass found the President too quick to temporize and too slow to act towards freeing the slaves. In widely publicized actions, Lincoln had rebuked two of his generals, Freemont and Hunter, who had tried to take aggressive action to free slaves. Lincoln had acted in order to keep on good terms with the border states whose support he deemed necessary to a successful war effort. But Douglass saw Lincoln's actions as weak and waffling.
Douglass's attitude gradually changed with the Emancipation Proclamation and with three meetings between the two men in 1863, 1864, and 1865. Douglass was won over by the President. Lincoln, for his part, seemed to view Douglass with genuine affection and friendship. Douglass gave masterful orations summarizing Lincoln's accomplishments following Lincoln's assassination, in 1876 at the unveiling of the Emancipation Monument in Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C., and throughout the rest of his life. Lincoln had fought slavery with every means at his command, Douglass came to believe, given the difficult political and military situation with which he had to deal.
Douglass' career moved in an opposite direction from that of Lincoln. He began as a reformer and a follower of the abolitionist William Garrison and he initially shared Garrison's contempt for the American political process. Gradually, Douglass found his own voice, and he became convinced the the United States Constitution did not support slavery. He came to conclude that it was possible to work for change through the political process, and this belief eventually allowed a convergence between him and Lincoln. With the conclusion of the Civil War, Douglass became a party man and a stalwart Republican -- perhaps giving up more than he should have of the passion of his early years. While he ultimately saw the failure of Reconstruction, Douglass remained for the rest of his long life firmly within the American political process.
Oakes does an excellent job of comparing and contrasting the work of Lincoln and Douglass. His accounts of the complex events leading to the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation are particuarly lucid. Oakes argues that Lincoln had surreptitiously delivered the death blow to slavery by the end of 1861. As to Douglass, I learned a great deal from Oakes's discussion of his three autobiographies, written in 1845, 1855, and 1881 (editied, 1891) and of how these works document the change of Douglass from reformer to an instance of the American success story. Oakes also describes well and detail a chilling meeting between Douglass and other African American leaders and President Andrew Johnson in which Douglass unsuccessfully tried to persuade Johnson to extend the right to vote to African Americans.
Oakes has written a readable, informed account of the achievements of two great American leaders. The attitudes which they represent -- the politican and the reformer -- and the issues with which they struggled remain with Americans today.
Robin Friedman
Neglected History.......2007-03-08
I enjoyed this book because it showed the civil rights struggle with all its complexities in a very clear and understandable way. The interaction of Douglas and Lincoln was especially interesting because it provided a very human picture of good men trying to deal with the thinking and forces operating during that time.
A spectacular love story.......2007-03-01
Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass long, coy courtship ends in the conjugal bliss of pragmatism. Explosive!
And the cover of the book is AWESOME. The design is great.
Book Description
This "masterful treatment of one of the most complex periods of American history" (New Republic) made history when it was originally published in 1988. It redefined how Reconstruction was viewed by historians and people everywhere in its chronicling of how Americans -- black and white -- responded to the unprecedented changes unleashed by the war and the end of slavery. This "smart book of enormous strengths" (Boston Globe) has since gone on to become the classic work on the wrenching post-Civil War period -- an era whose legacy reverberates still today in the United States.
Customer Reviews:
Long, dry but very complete account.......2007-09-04
If you are looking for a cursory overview of the Reconstruction years following the American Civil War, this is NOT the book for you. However, if you are not afraid to take on a lot of historical facts, this is a good book that covers the political waxing and waning era. I've often wondered how we got from such a "righteous cause" to the turn of the century civil rights mess we had. This book helped me better understand the realities of the times. Not easy to read but worth the effot.
Where Did You Go Mr. Thaddeus Stevens..........2007-09-04
I finished this book this weekend. It took me the better part of the summer to get through the 600+ pages of text. This is not an easy read, in many cases it was downright depressing. Oftentimes, I stopped because I just couldn't read anymore. There was only so much 'man's inhumanity to man' you can take. While good, and righteous people sit on the sidelines and do nothing.
Other times this book had me racing to Google or Wikipedias to bring back knowledge about people and places Foner describes more fully. For all the salacious things said about the Radical Republicans a huge debt is owed to Senator Thaddeus Stevens. He led the charge for overturning President Johnson's veto on the 13th Amendment and help craft the 14th and 15th as well. Steven's was a visionary, and had we done what he advocated we might have preempted 100 years of prolonged guerilla warfare after the Civil War. I read that Steven's home in Lancaster, PA was being destroyed to build a convention center. It ironic because everywhere I go in the South there is yet another memorial to Lee, or Jackson, or some other aspect of the 'Lost Cause' yet no one has the fortitude to save the memory of this great American; Thaddeus Stevens.
Sad, tragic... just like this book.
Reconstruction presented from a documented historical perspective.......2007-06-17
The period of post civil war reconstruction has largely been a mystery to me from the perspective of a mid-twentieth century public education. With the dearth of social ills now confronting us that previously could hardly have been imagined, I decided to take the time and read Froner's dense prize-winning account of reconstruction for any insights to why America seems to be failing so many of its citizens. Froner's deconstruction of the period is nothing short of a revelation - from the beginnings of class antagonisms, capital speculation and political influence, a brightline extends from the Reconstruction period directly to today's social ills, prejudice, war profiteering, crime and the prison-industrial complex, neoconservative agenda's and shady corporate deals. The wealth of documented source evidence and period pieces leave little doubt of the historical accuracy evident in the work - it is dense, fact-filled and notated, a sampling of which I double checked personally. Reconstruction illustrates that the abuses of our Constitution aren't new or original, but only the current incarnations of an evil born out of the greed and selfishness that pre-empted a rare opportunity to fulfill the promises made by our founding fathers. This is a must read book - more so today in light of the neoconservative and fascist resurgence cloaked in bloody patriotism and false morality. Facts add weight to the truth of history and the credibility of the author.
Corruption was good for the American soul?.......2007-04-04
Eric Foner once again displays his bias in yet another revision of history, this time the Reconstruction Era. Foner ignores the abuses wrought by corrupt politicians and a military regime determined to wreak vengeance on former Confederate States, and the many violations against ordinary southern citizens.
In Foner's mind, Reconstruction was a benevolent institution that did everything possible to advance race relations and institute equality (then why did black women not get the vote along with black men?) in the racist south. Never mind that slavery had also existed in the north, and that racism was just as prevalent in the Union States.
Whatever your view of history, one cannot argue that this work breaks no new ground and doesn't tell even the pro-Reconstruction camp anything that they didn't know before. Unfortunately it will likely prove popular in today's oh-so-politically-correct history classrooms.
Heavy, dense reading, but worth it.......2007-04-01
If you read Battle Cry of Freedom and want to read the sequel, here it is. The book is every bit as detailed and scholarly, and presents the era extremely well. The problem is that where Battle Cry covered the Civil period chock full of intriguing characters, major events, and familiar territory, Foner must work with a very muddled and confusing time in American history. The test of a good writer is whether s/he can make sense of a difficult topic, and Foner does an excellent job. A recommended read for serious students of American history.
Book Description
John Agresto spent a little over nine months in Iraq. His job, was to help Iraq rebuild its once highly regarded education system. As he left Iraq, Agresto was asked by the Pentagon to write a few paragraphs for the future about this formative and transitional time; from those paragraphs Mugged by Reality was born.
Customer Reviews:
He almost changed his mind.......2007-09-13
One of the most frightening things about today's world is that nobody ever changes their mind about anything. If discourse is at all meaningful people should occasionally be convinced that they were wrong but that happens very rarely, if ever. It makes one wonder what is the point of reading or discussing things if you always end up where you started.
Agresto comes close enough to merit the 5 stars.
He doesn't quite admit that he was wrong. He writes: "Nevertheless, given all this, forgive me if I am hesitant to join in the chorus of commentators, usually on the left, who now find it easy to call our venture in Iraq a "mistake." If "mistake" implies mistaking our goals, or having irresponsible intentions, then the war was not a mistake. But if mistake implies an inability fully to understand not the ends but the means, if it implies not knowing exactly what to do, when to do it, or even how to do it, then mistakes were made aplenty. Good intentions do not ensure success, and nice guys often do finish last. In that sense, looking at our failures of execution rather than of aim, I now have no hesitation in stating that we should not have undertaken the war." (p.11)
So we were not wrong in devastating Iraq because our hearts were pure -- we just did it wrong. OK -- that is at least a partial admission.
I have other quarrels with him. He writes: "liberal democratic nations might and often do wage war against their ideological enemies--liberal democracies have fought both hot and cold wars with Fascist and Communist states, for example--they rarely if ever wage war against each other. No matter how furious we Americans might get with France or Germany, invading a democratic Germany or bombing France is simply beyond anything we could ever imagine." How does he explain WWI when the liberal democratic nations France, England and the United States ganged up on an even more liberal and Democratic Germany.
On Page 20 he writes: "For a long time after 9/11, the news journals, in referring to the terrorists, seemed fixated on the question "Why do they hate us?" It's a bit of an odd question, for it seems to suggest that the reason for the hatred is somehow our doing--that we are hated because of something wrong about us, or wrong that we have done. It's also an odd question since I cannot envision others who have been attacked--as we were in 2001--naturally asking that question. (Do American Indians ask it? Do Jews ask it about Nazis? Do African-Americans ask it about the KKK? I tend to doubt it.) But there may be a value in answering the question as posed. Perhaps we are hated because of who we are--as well as because of who they are." Would he have written this if he were an American Indian, or an African American or an Iranian who witnessed the mistaken shooting down of an Iranian air liner that was not even greeted with an Oops, sorry, or an Iraqi whose home was bombed by a display of shock and awe (i.e. terror) in the search for people who want to change the world by means of terror (i.e. shock and awe).
As you see I am very critical of this book -- but it is a clear and honest effort to explain the neo-conservative point of view. As far as I can see it is the only such effort and as such it deserves 5 stars.
Outstanding insights for conservatives and liberals on Iraq.......2007-07-29
Agresto offers an unapologetic look at why we went into Iraq. Then, he details what went wrong. It is difficult to find such clarity, with no apparent ax to grind. Prior to reading this book, I was confident that we should stay. Now, I'm not so sure. Agresto's description of our many mistakes in Iraq was difficult for me to read. But, I knew that it was important to do so. The failure of Iraq is one that, as Agresto details, at its core is a failure of the Iraqis themselves. Having been liberated from tyranny by us, the Iraqis have failed to step up. Where we failed, it seems is, under the guise of multiculturalism, essentially failing to recognize the superiority of our own culture and systems. We cobbled together a political process, ignoring the virtues and merits of our own. We permitted al Sadr to roam free, even though he is a known murderer. We permitted a political system that divides based on sect and ethnicity, even though our is rooted in geography and forces ideological accommodation. We permitted looting and common crimes to go unpunished. We were too soft, for fear of being too much like Saddam. Agresto is critical of the military, but in fairness to them, the role of the military is to kill people and break things, not to rebuild civilizations for an ungrateful, cowardly and lazy populace.
Mugged By Fantasy.......2007-07-29
I caught Mr. Agresto on C-SPAN during a book review at the Hudson Institute. No matter how ingeniously he tries to put it, blaming the victim for the conflict in the Middle East is outrageous. His attempt to state the fighting is a result of Muslim fundamentalism rather than American greed is ridiculous, as well. On the one hand, he says Iraq was a nation of great people suffering under the boot of Saddam Hussein. Then, after we invaded and occupied that nation, the people somehow decided extremism and chaos are the new order of the day. He never asks the obvious questions: How did Iraq arrive at this destitute point? Did our invasion and occupation have anything to do with it? Has a successful democracy ever been imposed at gunpoint? What has religion got to do with our invasion and occupation of a nation which did us no harm? How does he justify our mass murder of the Iraqi people and the destruction of their homes? Why won't we leave that nation when the Iraqi people have been polled overwhelmingly supporting our departure? The list of important questions is miles long. The aggressor in the Middle East is America, not the Arabs. Mr. Agresto was mugged by fantasy, not reality. It's time he took the blinders off so that he could see the crimes against humanity America has committed in the Middle East in our name.
Not Really.......2007-07-29
It seems strange that the biggest reality mugging is escaping the writer and the apologist reviewers. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! THERE WAS NO REASON TO INVADE IRAQ! If Mr Agresto couldn't grasp this huge fact how his analysis gets credibility boggles the mind. If you start with this nugget of information all that Mr Agresto is describing can be seen in a very different light. There aren't ancient hatreds and a medieval culture at the root of problems in Iraq today. Simply consider the following, If someone had attacked us like we attacked Iraq, we would be royally pissed and do everything to make the life of their troops here miserable and the only people who would cooperate with the invading army would be opportunists.
Every culture has its unique nuances and Iraq does too. But perhaps if we start with the really big reality mugging Iraq isn't so difficult to understand and people like Mr Agresto do not serve our national interest's by trying to find explanations when the obvious (we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq) seems to be the root of all problems.
Best for a Reason.......2007-07-26
This is the best book on Iraq. Nothing else even comes close. It's the best because John Agresto had the education and background to understand what he was seeing once he got off the airplane. In fact, it is largely the lack of such an education and background on the part of our leadership/journalists that has gotten us into the fix we are currently in. Rene R. Daugherty Aztec, New Mexico
Amazon.com
A Timeline of Emancipation
In Forever Free, Eric Foner, the leading historian of America's Reconstruction era, reexamines one of the most misunderstood periods of American history: the struggle to overthrow slavery and establish freedom for African Americans in the years before, during, and after the Civil War. Forever Free is extensively illustrated, with visual essays by scholar Joshua Brown discussing the images of the period alongside Foner's text.
| 1787 |
|
The United States Constitution is ratified, containing several protections for slavery, including the Fugitive Slave Clause, three-fifths clause, and a cause prohibiting the abolition of the slave trade from Africa before 1808. |
| 1829-31 |
|
Publication of Appeal ... to the Coloured Citizens of the World by David Walker and The Liberator, a weekly newspaper edited by William Lloyd Garrison, marks the emergence of a new, militant abolitionist movement. | |
 |
|
Diagram of a slave ship from an 1808 report | |
| 1831 |
August 22 |
Nat Turner launches a slave rebellion in Southampton County, Virginia, resulting in the deaths of 55 whites persons before the uprising is crushed. |
| 1846 |
August |
Congress adjourns after intense sectional debate over the Wilmot Proviso, a proposal to prohibit slavery in all territory acquired in the Mexican-American War. |
| 1860 |
November 6 |
Election of Abraham Lincoln as president, representing the anti-slavery Republican Party |
| 1861 |
February 4 |
Seven seceded southern states form the Confederate States of America |
|
April 12 |
The Confederate attack on South Carolina's Fort Sumter begins the Civil War. | |
 |
|
A woodcut published in an 1831 account of the Nat Turner uprising | |
|
May 24 |
Gen. Benjamin F. Butler declares fugitive slaves at Fortress Monroe, Virginia, "contraband of war," who will not be returned to their owners. |
|
August 6 |
First Confiscation Act provides for the emancipation of slaves employed as laborers by the Confederate army. |
| 1862 |
April 16 |
Congress abolishes slavery in the District of Columbia with compensation to loyal owners, and also appropriates funds for "colonization" of freed slaves outside the United States. |
|
July 17 |
Second Confiscation Act frees slaves of disloyal owners. |
|
September 22 |
Five days after the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln issues the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which warns the South that if the rebellion has not ended by January 1, he will emancipate the slaves. It also promises aid to states that adopt plans for gradual, compensated emancipation and refers to colonization of freed people outside the country. |
| 1863 |
January 1 |
Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves in areas under Confederate control. It exempts Tennessee and parts of Louisiana and Virginia and does not apply to the border states, and also authorizes the enlistment of black soldiers. | |
 |
|
"Contrabands" in Cumberland Landing, Virginia, May 1862 | |
|
July 30 |
Lincoln insists black Union soldiers captured by the Confederate army be treated as prisoners of war, not escaped slaves as Confederate president Jefferson Davis has threatened. |
|
December 8 |
Lincoln issues the Proclamation of Amnesty of Reconstruction, offering a pardon and restoration of property (except slave property) to Confederates who take an oath of allegiance to the Union. |
| 1864 |
September 5 |
New constitution of Louisiana abolishes slavery; new constitutions in Maryland, Missouri, and Tennessee follow suit in the next six months. |
|
November 8 |
Lincoln reelected as president. |
|
January 16 |
Gen. William T. Sherman issues Special Field Order 15, setting aside land in coastal South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida for settlement by black families in 40-acre plots. |
|
March 3 |
Congress orders emancipation of wives and children of black soldiers. |
|
March 13 |
Confederate Congress authorizes enlistment of black soldiers. |
|
April 11 |
In the last speech before his death, two days after Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox, Lincoln favors limited black suffrage in the South. | |
 |
|
Company E, 4th U.S. Colored Infantry, at Fort Lincoln, Washington, DC | |
|
April 14 |
Assassination of Lincoln. |
|
December 18 |
Ratification of the 13th Amendment irrevocably abolishes slavery throughout the United States. |
| 1866 |
April 9 |
Over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, Congress passes the Civil Rights Act, establishing citizenship of black Americans and requiring that they be accorded equality before the law, principles later written into the Constitution in the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. | |
 |
|
John Wilkes Booth assassinates Lincoln, April 1865 | |
| 1867 |
March 2 |
Congress passes the Reconstruction Act, again over President Johnson's veto, extending the right to vote to black men in the South and inaugurating the era of Radical Reconstruction, America's first experiment in interracial democracy. |
| 1877 |
February |
After intense bargaining to resolve the disputed presidential election of 1876, Democrats agree to recognize Republican Rutherford B. Hayes as president, and Hayes agrees to end federal support for remaining Reconstruction governments. | |
 |
|
A March 1867 cartoon, following the passage of the Reconstruction Act, shows President Johnson and his southern allies angrily watching African Americans vote. | |
Book Description
From one of our most distinguished historians comes a groundbreaking new examination of the myths and realities of the period after the Civil War.
Drawing on a wide range of long-neglected documents, Eric Foner places a new emphasis on black experiences and roles during the era. We see African Americans as active agents in overthrowing slavery, in shaping Reconstruction, and creating a legacy long obscured and misunderstood. He compellingly refutes long-standing misconceptions of Reconstruction, and shows how the failures of the time sowed the seeds of the Civil Rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s. Richly illustrated and movingly written, this is an illuminating and essential addition to our understanding of this momentous era.
Customer Reviews:
AN EYE OPENER!!!!.......2007-08-15
As a Civil War Buff, I never read very much about Reconstruction, unless it was an appendage to a book about the Civil War or the years following th Civil War.
However, this book opened my eyes to the true facts of the Reconstruction - in painstaking detail and with much informative narrative, Eric Foner, quoting specific individuals and presenting historical facts about Afro-American conventions and gatherings -- tells us about the part that proud Afro-Americans, newly and joyfully liberated from their former slave years, met, convened, conferred and became leaders in their community -- statesmen, lawmakers and governors of towns, and VOTERS.
However, this freedom, this growth, this liberty was short lived, as President Johnson and the Democratic party of that time effectively put an end to this, not only squashing the Afro-American right to be citizens, but to amend a Constitutional Amendment to further deprive them of their rights and liberty.
The North, as well as the South was to blame for this.
Illustrations, quotes, anecdotes and supporting documentation as well as related input from the early Women Suffrage leaders make for a fascinating historical document that should be in every library and on every reading list.
An Excellent Primer on Reconstruction.......2007-06-16
Author Eric Foner's Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction focuses on the period of United States history from before the Civil War through the period of Reconstruction, with an epilogue that speaks to Civil Rights in the modern era. Throughout the text are six essays written and illustrated by Joshua Brown, the executive director of the American Social History Project. Five distinctive areas are highlighted throughout the text which include the following: the period before the Civil War, mainly concentrating on slavery and the lives of slaves; the Civil War itself, including Abraham Lincoln's strategies and the Emancipation Proclamation; Presidential Reconstruction with President Andrew Johnson; Radical Reconstruction directed by Congress and President Ulysses S. Grant; and the aforementioned Civil Rights in the modern era. Essays written by Brown highlight artwork and photography of the era and attempt to show the mood of the print media with regards to racism and the struggle to integrate American society. Noteworthy is the fact that the book was written in the politically correct times of the early twenty-first century when blacks are described as African-Americans, though Caucasians are described as whites and other ethnic groups like Asian-Americans are described as Chinese.
The life of the average slave is correctly described as dismal throughout the opening chapters. "The Peculiar Institution," as it is called, focused on plantations where slave labor "...was far more demanding than in household slavery, and the death rate among slaves much higher." Descriptions of slavery permeate the text, even listing the hardships slaves endured while being transported to the United States from Africa. One such passage states that the decks on the ships were "`...only 18 inches, so that the unfortunate human beings could not turn around, or even on their sides...and here they are usually chained to the decks by their necks and legs.'"
Battles and atrocities of the war itself are not mentioned in much detail; rather the political battles are the point of focus. On the opening page of the text, General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" is described thusly: "Less than three weeks earlier, Sherman, at the head...had captured the city [Savannah] completing his March to the Sea, which cut a swath of destruction...." Not mentioned is the mayhem and criminal behavior exerted by his army which most historians regard as fact. Although many believe the Civil War was exclusively about slavery, Foner does point out that even Lincoln was slow to embrace emancipation and could not support a biracial living arrangement post-war with black leaders. He suggested emigration to Central America or the Caribbean and in December 1861 "...signed an agreement with a shady entrepreneur to settle former slaves on an island off the coast of Haiti." Moreover, the Emancipation Proclamation, "...perhaps the most misunderstood important document in American history," does not have a purpose. Due to Constitutional constraints, it only freed slaves who were held in areas controlled by the Confederacy. It did not free slaves in Border States that did not secede from the Union but still practiced slavery.
Following the surrender of Confederate forces in April 1865, the period termed "Presidential Reconstruction" began in 1865 and ran until 1868. This was President Andrew Johnson's, "...promise of a quick restoration of the Union... [and] a return to normality...." Since Johnson was a Southerner and a true federalist, not much changed under his leadership. Johnson's failures led to a period known as "Radical Reconstruction" and lasted until 1877. This tumultuous period was "...the only attempt by a national government in league with emancipated slaves to fashion an interracial democracy from a slave society." During Radical Reconstruction, three Constitutional amendments were passed; the President of the United States was impeached for the first time in the nation's history; and the radical group named the Ku Klux Klan was formed. Furthermore, the federal government gained the ability to override states' rights with regards to the principle of equal civil rights.
Forever Free concludes with an assessment of the failure of the Reconstruction era, saying that blacks briefly left the servitude of slavery, then quietly returned, being only slightly better off than before. Segregation and discrimination still remained throughout the country, but was especially strong in the south. This failure to properly develop the country in a biracial way has caused many of the issues that are still faced by the United States, including segregation that lasted until the 1960s and discrimination that still exists to this day. The author attempts to show that the failures of Reconstruction are the causes of racial tensions and the reasons for failures of blacks to attain equality. Unfortunately, he fails to hold the black community accountable for some of its own shortcomings, like the high out-of-wedlock birthrate, the greater occurrences of fatherless homes, and the increasing high school dropout rate. The "Second Reconstruction" of the mid-1960s was abandoned just as the first Reconstruction was due to economic and political necessity with still more work to be done.
Overall, one cannot help but feel that Reconstruction was an abysmal failure and that many whites in the South were outright racists. It is difficult to imagine how another civil war did not take place, albeit on a smaller scale, during the two years immediately following the cessation of hostilities based upon the climate that existed in the South. Although Forever Free details events during the almost twenty year period from the beginnings of the Civil War to the end of Reconstruction, very little is written about that is positive. Further, fuller explanations of certain events are not included. For example, as mentioned earlier, Sherman's "March to the Sea" is only referred to casually without descriptions of the pure horror his army unleashed on parts of the south that might have affected the behavior by some Southerners after the war. Foner also fails to fully expand upon Andrew Johnson's impeachment, a historically significant event which led to the loss of power by the president and for all practical purposes, the country being run by Congress. This resulted in the election of another corrupt president, Ulysses S. Grant, in 1868. Finally, one is struck by the negative portrayals of black Americans throughout the period. According to Brown, there was little, if any, artwork or photographic images of blacks that did not exploit them or show them as lazy or less than intelligent. The tone of the book was negative and will lead those who are unknowledgeable about Reconstruction to believe that very little good came of it.
Emancipation, Reconstruction, and Civil Rights.......2007-04-29
Forever Free, by Eric Foner, is a condensed telling of how African-Americans went from slaves to full citizens. While not as detailed as his book on Reconstruction, or even as detailed as his Short History of Reconstruction, Foner's Forever Free does a good job introducing the reader to the struggles the freed blacks faced after emancipation in the 1860s, and the hardships they faced through a hundred years of Jim Crow and intimidation, north and south, to the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-20th Century.
An Introduction to Reconstruction.......2006-05-25
As a result of Ken Burns's famous television series, "The Civil War" many Americans learned about this seminal event in our history. For all its virtues, Burns's series was properly criticized for deemphasizing the role of slavery in the conflict and for not focusing on the impact of the Civil War on African Americans.
Eric Foner's "Forever Free" is part of an ambitious project designed to carry forward the Civil War story with emphasis on Emancipation an on the attempt to reconstruct the South to produce a true multi-racial society. The book is part of an ongoing effort by the Forever Free Foundation to produce a film to make the story of Reconstruction accessible and understandable to a broad audience. Foner is Professor of History at Columbia University and the author of among other things, "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863 -- 1877 a detailed scholarly study of this controversial period. He is assisted in this book by Joshua Brown, executive director of the American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning at the City University of New York. In the book, Brown complements Foner's text with six chapters of photographs, drawings and other artifacts of popular American culture illustrating the changing perception of African Americans.
Until relatively recently, many historians treating Reconstruction saw it as a tragic mistake -- as an attempt by Radical Republicans to foist corrupt governments on the defeated South dominated by unscrupulous whites and uneducated African Americans and to take vengeance on the South for the Civil War. The African American historian W.E.B. DuBois was among the first to challenge this view with his book "Black Reconstruction" and Foner, and many contemporary historians, follow in his footsteps. While recognizing the failings of Reconstruction, Foner sees it as a noble effort to end slavery and to give all Americans, white and African Americans, political and economic rights and to create, for the first time, a society truly approximating ideals of equality. Reconstruction ultimately failed due to the war-weariness and indifference of the North and to resistance and frequently terrorism within the white South.
Foner tells a complex story simply and clearly. This is not a book that breaks new scholarly ground. The book is intended for a large public which, in general, lacks a detailed understanding of our Nation's history. Foner begins with a brief discussion of slavery in the pre-War South and follows this with a discussion of the Civil War focusing on President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863), its importance and its effect. But the heart of the story lies in the Reconstruction years, as Foner describes President Andrew Johnson's conciliatory policy of Presidential Reconstruction followed by the Constitutional Amendments of the Reconstruction years and Congressional Reconstruction's attempt to give meaning to ideals of freedom and equality. The story draws upon difficult events on the national arena and on complex events in each of the Southern states. Ultimately, Reconstruction was defeated, or rather postponed, following the disputed Presidential election of 1876 and the Compromise of 1877. Foner describes the reinstitution of Jim Crow in the South which aimed to keep African Americans in subjection. An all too brief concluding section discusses the Civil Rights movement and America's ongoing struggle to secure racial equality.
The photographic commentary, both in Foner's text and in Brown's essays, adds a great deal of immediacy to the book, not the least of which derives from showing the reader some of the popular culture of the day. Many will find this unfamiliar and fascinating.
The Reconstruction era remains a too-little known and highly controversial area of our history. It will encourage the reader to engage with the topic and to think about freedom and its significance and of the promise of America. The book includes a brief bibliography for those moved to further reading and study.
Robin Friedman
Recycled text; pictures excellent.......2006-04-30
This is a rehash of Foner's earlier books on Reconstruction. Nothing new there, except that his Marxism is finally out of the closet. (His main criticism of Reconstruction is that it was not seized as an opportunity for land redistribution and the introduction of socialism in the US). The alternating chapters on photos by Joshua Brown are, in pleasant contrast, fascinating, new and well-done. Foner chapters: 0 stars; Brown chapters: 5 stars; thus average rating.
Book Description
Lincoln measured the promise--and cost--of American freedom in lucid and extraordinarily moving prose. Here in this two volume set ("Speeches and Writings 1859-1865" and "Speeches and Writings 1832-1858"), are all the significant works, including the complete Lincoln-Douglas debates, dozens of speeches, hundreds of personal and political letters, communications to generals in the field, presidential messages and proclamations, poems, and private reflections on democracy, slavery, and the meaning of the Civil War's immense suffering.
Customer Reviews:
Lincoln Source Documents in a Gorgeous Printing.......2007-08-03
The Library of America's collection of original Lincoln source documents in two volumes is a wonderful addition to the library of any person interested in this portion of American history. The two volumes represent the best scholarship available today in terms of organizing and duplicating Lincoln's own words as they are found in personal letters, speech transcriptions, notes, memos, and other forms of written communication. This is a collection that is a fascinating look at the inner thoughts of Lincoln as he progresses from a congressional candidate in the 1850's, then as a candidate for President in 1860, and then as he prosecutes the war of the states until the time of his assassination.
The Library of America represents a rare and welcome to the world of print publishing. Funded from a continuous trust that is structured to keep every single volume perpetually in print, the Library prints only on the finest paper, using only the best inks, and implementing the best binding technology available. These books are true library quality, with ultra-high quality paper from Germany and bindings from the Netherlands, and truly represent the finest book quality typically seen in today's book world. The perpetual trust of the Library nevertheless keeps the price of these volumes at a reasonable level, with most volumes available between $24 and $40 dollars. Once you handle one, you'll undoubtedly see what a real value this series represents.
Lincoln's writings and recorded speeches are incredibly interesting to read. These works provide remarkable insight into this most unusual of people, and posterity is pleased that so much of these items were saved and eventually collated for later review. Can we make ourselves belief that this is largely a self-educated man who writes English prose at a level rarely seen even in the most educated of individuals? Following the logic posed in many of these letters, coupled with the piecing insights into human nature that Lincoln seemed to exude, can give us an experience that extends our thinking and challenges our views. Because Lincoln is canonized in history, we really don't understand the real man all that well. These personal writings of Lincoln help de-mystify the true person behind the persona, and make us see the man, not just the legend.
Great volume covering Lincoln's Presidency & the Civil War.......2005-05-11
This volume provides Lincoln's speeches, writings and selected letters from 1859 through 1865. This period is the year leading up to his election in 1860 through his assassination in 1865. You will get to read amazing letters from the commander-in-chief trying to get his generals to fight and win the war, letters to all kinds of people covering topics public and personal, proclamations suspending habeas corpus and emancipation, his addresses to congress (our State-of-the Union Addresses used to be delivered by letter to Congress), and some of the greatest treasures in American history: the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. It is stunning that in all this writing, so much of it powerful and worthwhile, that these two brief speeches so obviously deserve to be engraved in stone for all ages to read and take into their souls.
It is awfully moving to read the material related to the conduct of the Civil War. He was very strong in his determination to destroy the Rebellion, yet he has very touching notes about his sick child and is very human in his communications with intimates.
This volume also has a chronology of Lincoln's life and great notes on the texts. Note particularly the Associated Press copy of the Gettysburg Address that was contemporary with its delivery. The version most of us know is a finished copy prepared for publication. The differences are subtle and not all that important, just interesting to note for style and rhetorical power.
I strongly urge you to have these two volumes on your American History bookshelf. Simply, they are important and you will learn a great deal reading through them.
Lincoln in His Own Words.......2003-03-13
I purchased this collection of speeches and letters knowing little about America's most beloved president other than what I had learned in my high school history classes. My first impression was "Boy, where have all the good presidents gone?" Aside from the famous speeches we're all familiar with, Lincoln was a prolific man of letters and an amazing presenter of ideas ahead of their time. Our sixteenth president wasn't perfect, but neither was our nation. During perhaps the most crucial period in U.S. history, thank God there was Abraham Lincoln. I grew up as a Democrat, but if Lincoln were running for the presidency today, he would be the first Republican to get my vote. This Library of America edition of Lincoln's speeches and writings is a beautifully bound volume that I will cherish for years to come.
Leadership and Eloquence.......2000-09-14
This is the second volume of the Library of America Project devoted to the works of Abraham Lincoln. It covers the period after the Lincoln-Douglas Debates and includes many of the records of the Lincoln Presidency and the Civil War. The standard Lincoln materials are included, of course, such as the Gettysburg Address, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Inauguaral Addresses. But there is immeasurably more. We see Lincoln writing to his Generals, Cabinet members, and other national leaders in his attempt to hold the Union together. We see a lincolns agonizing over military discipline and frequently pardoning deserting soldiers. We see Lincoln dealing with Indian issues in his day; and we see him supporting the use of black troops in the War effort. This volume is highly useful in uderstanding the Civil War. Equally important it teaches the nature of leadership and fortitude. Finally, Lincoln is one of our Nation's great prose writers and the book deserves reading for that reason alone. The Library of America is to be commended for this volume and for its ongoing series.
Book Description
Historians overwhelmingly have blamed the demise of Reconstruction on Southerners' persistent racism. Heather Cox Richardson argues instead that class, along with race, was critical to Reconstruction's end. Northern support for freed blacks and Reconstruction weakened in the wake of growing critiques of the economy and calls for a redistribution of wealth.
Using newspapers, public speeches, popular tracts, Congressional reports, and private correspondence, Richardson traces the changing Northern attitudes toward African-Americans from the Republicans' idealized image of black workers in 1861 through the 1901 publication of Booker T. Washington's Up from Slavery. She examines such issues as black suffrage, disenfranchisement, taxation, westward migration, lynching, and civil rights to detect the trajectory of Northern disenchantment with Reconstruction. She reveals a growing backlash from Northerners against those who believed that inequalities should be addressed through working-class action, and the emergence of an American middle class that championed individual productivity and saw African-Americans as a threat to their prosperity.
The Death of Reconstruction offers a new perspective on American race and labor and demonstrates the importance of class in the post-Civil War struggle to integrate African-Americans into a progressive and prospering nation.
Average customer rating:
- Check and see
- Suprise! Suprise!
- Prescient St Augustine?
- Something of a disappointment
- Romulus courts Helen, Paris founds Rome, Moses goes to Troy..
|
History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 2 (Chronology)
Anatoly T Fomenko
Manufacturer: Delamere Resources LLC
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Assyria, Babylonia & Sumer
| Ancient
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Historiography
| Historical Study
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| World
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Medieval
| World
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Medieval
| Movements & Periods
| History & Criticism
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
German
| Poetry
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Russian
| Poetry
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Spanish
| Poetry
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Chinese
| Classics
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Mythology & Folklore
| Encyclopedias
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Controversial Knowledge
| Religious Studies
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
History
| Religious Studies
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Gnosticism
| Church History
| Christianity
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Historical Jesus
| Jesus
| Christianity
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Celtic
| Earth-Based Religions
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Magic & Wizards
| Fantasy
| Science Fiction & Fantasy
| Subjects
| Books
Today's Heroes
| Series
| Christianity
| Religions
| Children's Books
| Subjects
| Books
History
| Fashion
| Arts & Photography
| Subjects
| Books
Look Inside Children's Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside History Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Fiction Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Nonfiction Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Reference Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Religion & Spirituality Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Science Fiction & Fantasy Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
-
History: Fiction or Science? Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy's Almagest. Chronology III
-
They Cast No Shadows: A Collection of Essays on the Illuminati, Revisionist History, and Suppressed Technologies
-
The Medieval Empire of the Israelites
-
Discovering the Mysteries of Ancient America: Lost History And Legends, Unearthed And Explored
ASIN: 2913621066 |
Product Description
`History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 2` is the second volume of the most explosive and astounding tractate on history ever written - however, every theory it contains, no matter how unorthodox, is backed by rock solid scientific data. The book is easy and pleasant to read; it is well-illustrated, contains hundreds of charts, graphs and illustrations, copies of ancient manuscripts, and countless facts attesting to the falsity of the chronology used nowadays. You will be amazed to discover: - That the chronology universally accepted today and taken for granted is simply wrong; - That ALL methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts known today are erroneous or non-exact; - That there is not a single document that could be reliably dated earlier than the XIth century; The Author refers to the Middle Ages as the Antiquity and proves mutual superimposition of the Second and the Third Roman Empire, both of which become identified as the respective kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Furthermore, he asserts that the famous reform of the Occidental Church in the XI century by Pope Gregory Hildebrand was the reflection of the XII century reforms of Byzantine emperor Andronicus who in his turn identifies with Jesus Christ. The Trojan war counted by Homer happened only as late as of the XIII century A.D. and the great poet actually lived in XIV century A.D. No stone in history of Antiquity is left unturned. Literally. This book is the beginning of a major correction to the chronology we live with.
Customer Reviews:
Check and see.......2007-06-21
I don't care what other people say of this book. Those affirmig it's fake, they hadn't ever read it. Or have some special reasons to do so. "Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see..." This book won't make you feel comfortable. It'll make you feel free. It'll make you feel you're "not the only one" to feel you'd been lied to for centuries.
Suprise! Suprise!.......2007-03-22
Here is a serie of books which turns "the whole world" upside down. I learned a lot of it and I hope that a new book from A.T. Fomenko will follow very quick. A absolute must for everybody who is interested in history or even a little bit from it.
Prescient St Augustine?.......2006-02-05
We can so far divide the New Chronology into the following three parts:
a) The verifiable theory that proves consensual chronology wrong with the aid of astronomy, statistics and mathematics;
b) The new chronology hypothesis based on a new understanding of known historical facts and the most likely logical explanation of the most obvious inconsistencies inherent in the official version of history;
c) The history conjectures, that is experimental historical reconstructions based on assumptions that the authors believe to make sense in the light of their research and linguistic parallels - void of ironclad factual support to date.
Fomenko's theory complies with the most rigid scientific standards as a whole:
It gives a coherent explanation of what we already know.
- It is consistent: independent lines of inquiry all lead to the same conclusion.
- The predictions it makes are confirmed empirically.
Fomenko goes by the following axioms:
- Chronology is the basis of history;
- Human evolution has always been linear, gradual and irreversible;
- The "cyclic" nature of human civilization is a myth, likewise all the gaps, duplicates, "dark ages" and "renaissances" that we know from consensual history;
- The accumulation of geographical knowledge as reflected in cartography is a gradual and irreversible process;
- The chronological distance between a given manuscript and the events described therein is proportional to the amount of distortions it contains;
- There is no "useless" information in authentic ancient sources.
Why the mainstream historians do not shower mathematician Academician Dr.Prof Fomenko with thanks and laurels?
The Russians:
Because Fomenko asserts that there was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by three centuries of slavery, providing a formidable body of documental evidence to prove his assertion. The so-called "Tartars and Mongols" were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a bilingual state with Arabic spoken as freely as Russian. The ancient Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities. The hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called "blood tax"). Their "invasions" were punitive operations against the regions that attempted tax evasion. Fomenko proves that Russian history as we know it today is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scientists brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs, whose ascension to the throne was the result of coup d'état, charged with the mission of making their reign look legitimate. Fomenko proves Ivan the Terrible to be a collation of four rulers, no less. They represented the two rival dynasties - the legitimate rulers and the ambitious upstarts. The winner took it all! Over some 30 years of controversy, Russian historians have made a most remarkable transition - they were initially accusing the young mathematician Fomenko of anticommunist dissident activity and attempts to deface the historical legacy of Soviet Russia; nowadays the middle-aged mathematician is accused of adhering to "pro-communist Russian nationalism" and defacing the proud historical legacy of Great Russia.
The Westerners:
Because Fomenko blows consensual Russian history to smithereens, successfully removing a crucial cornerstone from underneath the otherwise impeccable edifice of World History. Fomenko adds insult to injury, wiping out one by one the Ancient Rome (the foundation of Rome in Italy is dated to the XIV century A. D.), the Ancient Greece and its numerous poleis, which he identifies as the mediaeval crusader settlements on the territory of Greece, and the Ancient Egypt (the pyramids of Giza become dated to the XI-XV century A. D. and identified as the royal cemetery of the Global "Mongolian" Empire, no less). The civilization of the Ancient Egypt is irrefutably dated to the XII-XV century A. D. with the aid of the ancient Egyptian horoscopes cut in stone. He was the first one to decipher and date all such horoscopes, coming up with mediaeval dates in every case. English historians rage at the suggestion that the history of Ancient England was de facto a Byzantine import transplanted to the English soil by the fugitive Byzantine nobility. To reward the English historians who consider themselves the true scribes of World History, the cover of the present book portrays Tintoretto's Jesus Christ crucified on the Big Ben.
The Chinese:
Because Fomenko wipes out the Ancient History of China outright. No such thing. Full point. The compilation of the so-called Ancient Chinese History is reliably datable to the XVII-XVIII century only. It is perfectly recognizable as the Ancient European history, reworked and transcribed in hieroglyphs as yet another historical transplantation, this time performed on the Chinese soil by the loving Jesuit hands. The Chinese are the next in line to go berserk. Chinese history is inevitably bound to get both more ancient and more eventful, proportionally to the growing involvement of China in the world affairs. Chinese historians will keep on finding valid proof of prehistoric Chinese spaceflights until the Politburo orders them to shut up.
The Arabs:
Too bad. Islam with all its key figures is datable to XV-XVI century A. D. Arabic historians may find consolation in the crucial historical role of the Ottoman Empire in the XVI-XVII century. The trouble is that this empire was initially a Christian state, with Hagia Sophia identifiable as Temple of Solomon, according to Fomenko! We can only guess if the acquisition of Alexander the Great (a Macedonian and a Christian) as the founder of the Muslim World Empire will make Fomenko's theories more acceptable to the Arabic mainstream. He certainly does not spare any holy cows at all, claiming The Stone of Qa'Aba in Mecca to contain the lost Arch of the Covenant.
The Divinity:
Despite of reiterated statement that his theory is all about chronology and not Religion, Fomenko stirs up a whole condominium of wasp nests. His collection of anathemas, fatwa, and other condemnations from all parties concerned is already considerable. Little wonder, considering that the history of religions à la Fomenko looks as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the XI century and JC), Bacchic Christianity (XI-XII century, before and after JC), JC Christianity (XII-XVI century) and its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity, the Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on.
According to Fomenko we know strictly NOTHING about the events that predate the X century A. D.
St Augustin was prescient when he spoke unto us: "be wary of mathematicians, particularly when they speak the truth."
Something of a disappointment.......2005-09-09
After having read the first volume of this expected series of 7 volumes I was triggered by the thesis of these authors that ancient Greek and Roman history did in fact take place in the Middle Ages. So I started studying medieval history of the Middle East - also known as Islamic history - to find out if the opponents of the ancient Greeks and Romans - the Acheamenid Persians, Sassanids, Scythians, Egyptians, etc. - also have their duplicates in medieval history. My search was disappointing: none of the many medieval Islamic dynasties seemed to correspond to the ancient middle eastern rulers.
However, I did find a close correspondence between Herodotus' Persian kings and medieval events:
- the defeat and capture of an Anatolian king - the Lydian Croesus - by the Persian conqueror Cyrus is identical to the defeat and capture of another Anatolian king - sultan Bayezid - by the Asian/Mongol conqueror Tamerlane;
- the Persian conquest of Egypt by the cruel tyrant Cambyses reds almost exactly as the Ottoman conquest of Egypt by Selim the Grim (note the nickname!);
- Darius the Lawgiver of the Persian Empire looks very much alike to Sulayman the Magnificent, the Lawgiver in Islamic history;
- Xerxes, whose main claim to fame is to be defeated by the Greeks at the naval battle of Salamis, looks like Selim II (the Sot) whose main claim to fame is to be defeated by a Spanish-Italian alliance at the naval battle of Lepanto.
I should have expected Fomenko et al. to arrive at similar conclusions, however, they claim that the Persian kings are the alter egos of the Angevin kings of Sicily whose biographies do not contain the exploits of the Persian kings.
The similiarities I indicate lead to the conclusion that Herodotus must have written his Histories at the close of the 16th century. But this is extremely late, given that Herodotus is "the Father of History", so therefore all other "ancient" histories must have been fabricated even later. Yet, the founders of modern chronology - Scaliger and Petavius - laid their foundations also at the close of the 16th century and had the full corpus of ancient histories already at their disposal.
It seems to me that Fomenko has to address these inconsistencies, maybe in the forthcoming 5 volumes?
Another critique of their book is that the correspondencies between different rulers are often based on a superficial comparison of the biographies; upon a more thorough comparison many details appear that do not correspond at all.
Finally, the authors rely heavily on the works of Gregorovius (1821-1891!!) - his medieval histories of Rome and Athens - as the source of medieval history; these works are - at least in the West - hoplessly outdated and have been superceded by more up-to-date works (for instance, Julius Norwich's trilogy on Byzantine history is not even cited).
Romulus courts Helen, Paris founds Rome, Moses goes to Troy.........2005-07-30
If you agree with Fomenko that Roman chronology is basically the foundation of the entire edifice of global chronology; you would also certainly agree that despite its numerous gaps and inconsistencies, Roman history is the best-documented field of ancient history, and thus a reference scale. But how well is the actual date of the Eternal City's foundation known?
Firstly, Rome is supposed to have been founded by the Trojans who had to flee after the fall of Troy. Some claim Rome to have been founded by Aeneas and Ulysses shortly after Troy had fallen; others are of the opinion that there was an entire dynasty that ruled for 500 years between the fall of Troy and the foundation of Rome.
Well, that's just an innocent 500 years long misunderstanding compared with what heretic Fomenko says, asserts, proves in his second volume: Second Roman Empire, Third Roman Empire, Biblical Kingdom of Israel, Biblical Kingdom of Judah, Holy Roman Empire are stories about basically same events, written from different points of view at different times. The underlying events have actually taken place during xii-xv cy. These histories have been written and perfected by multitude of highly talented humanist and clerical writers of xiii-xvi cy disguised as "ancients" with glorious names like Homer, Pluto, Thucydides etc..Chronology 2.0 beta..
Historians are kindly invited to report the bugs.
Book Description
Stephen B. Oates discerns the historical truth from the mythical legend that surrounds Lincoln in this original and fascinating portrait of America's 16th president.
Customer Reviews:
A Man Greater than the Myths.......2006-06-29
In this small but valuable volume, Oates explores the reality beyond the two sources of Lincoln myth: the primary myth of a saintly and folkloric Lincoln of Carl Sandburg and a secondary myth of the 'white honky' Lincoln of the 1970's revisionists. Oates emphasizes that Lincoln drew deeply upon the "spirit of his age", which was a profoundly revolutionary time across the world. Oates relates how Lincoln absorbed one of the core lessons of America from the example of Henry Clay: : "in this country one can scarcely be so poor, but that, if he will, he can acquire sufficient education to get through the world respectably".
That slavery was the cause of the Civil War is beyond all doubt. As Oates explains, however, the North did not go to war to free the slaves. In the standard phrasing, the North went to war to 'preserve the union'. Oates explores Lincoln's fears that the spread of slavery in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision would lead to the destruction of democratic society. The debate then still raged on the world stage whether a republican form of government could last. Lincoln rejected the "ingenious sophism" that states could freely leave the Union. "With rebellion thus sugar coated [southern leaders] have been drugging the public mind of their section for more than thirty years." Secession posed nothing less than a final challenge to popular government. If a minority could destroy the government any time it felt aggrieved, then no government could endure. Thus the war had to be fought to preserve not just the American Republic, but the possibility of republican government.
Lincoln did in fact oppose slavery from early on. His views on racial matters apart from slavery became more fully progressive over time. Lincoln, however, hoped that slavery would slowly melt away in a losing competition with free labor and that liberated slaves would resettle in Africa. It is part of Lincoln's greatness that he later gave up these views. Oates explores this evolution in his thinking. Oates debunks the notion that the Emancipation Proclamation was unimportant in liberating the slaves. Oates also refutes the notion that Lincoln would have favored an easy hand during Reconstruction. On the contrary, the evidence strongly suggests he would have led the so-called Radical Republicans.
Highly recommended for any reader with an interest in Lincoln, the Civil War era, or really pretty much any American.
A Concise, Readable Study of our Greatest President........2001-10-20
If you're interested in understanding what the man Abraham Lincoln was like, this is the book for you. This short, well-documented study of our sixteenth President cuts through the myths and the utter nonsense that have been written about Lincoln to expose the real hero behind these tales. This work shows Lincoln as the driven, courageous yet fallible man who never gave up on his dream of freedom for all men. Highly recommended!
It did not elaborate on the question of Lincoln's parentage........1999-09-19
As an amateur genealogist I discovered that I was a sixth cousin, five times removed to President Abraham Lincoln through the Lincoln and Holmes families. On page 21 ( Abraham Lincoln, The man Behind The Myths ) Mr. Oates wrote that there was a mistaken belief that Thomas Lincoln was not Abraham's real father rather it was a Senator John C. Calhoun or a Henry Clay. If this was true it would mean that I was not related to President Abraham Lincoln. How would such a rumour start ? Is there any documented evidence that Nancy Lincoln had an affair with one of these men while being married to Thomas Lincoln. At the time I am trying to locate Stephen B. Oates so I can get this matter cleared up. Sincerely, Mr. Blair E. Bartlett, 87 Shillington Road, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, E2J 4K7 1-506-696-6175
Separating mythos from the mortal.......1998-04-06
We invented Abraham Lincoln. Not the man, of course, but the myth, that solemn and statuesque giant memorialized eternally overlooking the Capitol mall. The power of that myth and the quiet dignity of its personage dwarfs us all. But the myth is not the man. Myths never are. Stephen Oates in his _Abraham Lincoln, The Man Behind the Myths_, does not seek to diminish the man but rather to clarify him, separating the mythos from the mortal. And it is not an undaunting task, it seems, for overly soon after Lincoln's tragic end the mills began to churn. The public's shredding of the White House interior for mementos while Mary Lincoln lay debilitated in the next room seems symbolic of the wolfpack mentality in Washington even today. And every new memoir published by another family acquaintance of the Lincoln's almost always got it wrong, and tore anew at the heart of the family. We may not have memorialized and glorified our modern-day tragic heroes to such an extent, for we have simultaneously tried to scandalize them. But the tabloid trade it seems has always been a yellow paper. Even Lincoln was vilified in his time and after. He was, Oates, reminds us, one of the most unpopular living presidents of our history. But though the legacy ballooned to heroic proportions after his passing, the man seems to have been lost in it all, remaining only in the hearts of the family leaving quietly and unattended down the steps of the White House never to return.
Average customer rating:
- A Communist Republican?
- One of the most influential books in American History!
- Solid Historical Work
- I found it to be rather dull
- This Book Makes Me Want to Kill Myself
|
|
Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers
Lincoln's Sword: The Presidency and the Power of Words
This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War
Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln's Opponents in the North
West from Appomattox: The Reconstruction of America after the Civil War
