I did not care for this book

Written by Webb Garrison in 1993, about 270 pages.
Decent bibliography, but no footnotes.
To me, an unpardonable error for one who served as an associate dean of Emory University, president of McKendree College, and a freelance writer who specializes in American history, according to the book cover. Perhaps it was an intentional error.

Much of what Mr. Garrison writes is not clearly documented and taken out of context to it's historical background. Mr. Garrison tries to show Lincoln's inconsistency between what he says and does, he is somewhat like Bill O'Reilly in how he presents his information by treating speculation and unreliable statements as accepted fact, only he is not as interesting of a story teller.

He has the usually wrong comments about Abraham'rs reasons for marrying Mary, leaning on Herndon's writing to justify his conclusion. Garrison writes,
"Therefore this self-educated man and impoverished attorney married a highly educated patrician in order to foster his political fortunes"

Repeats, but does not dispute, Herndon's conclusion that Thomas was not Abraham's biological father.

In one chapter titled 'A Counsel For a Slaveholder', he uses the word "perhaps" and "it is possible" 5 times in one paragraph.
"Perhaps attorney Abraham Lincoln felt obligated to represent anyone who requested his help, or perhaps he may have been more interested in collecting his fees than in defending his principles. Although he had spoken against slavery, it is possible his views and actions at this time had not yet matured. It is also possible that as an attorney, he believed in finding and obeying the letter of the law, whether or not he agreed with it. Or perhaps, knowing that the case would be sensational, he couldn't refrain from getting involved for the sake of publicity."

An example of more of this is in the chapter 'Emancipation - The Burning Issue of the Day?' Garrison writes
"Was the mystic who was born in obscurity angry during this period? His surviving letters and papers give no clue. Perhaps he fumed and stormed, saying things his discreet secretary's did not record. Maybe he bit his tongue and bided his time, eagerly watching for a sign or an omen that would reveal to him - if to no one else - what course Providence directed him to take"

Fortunately I only wasted a $1 on this purchase from our local library book sale. I understand why they wanted to get rid of it.

Well done Gene.

Just for fun, I went to Amazon to check what readers said about this book. This response was my favorite: "I have not bought this book as I would not let one penny fall into Garrison's pocket, but I've perused this volume heavily. I wish that I could have given it 0 stars....this book should be relegated to the heap of trash-writing never to be recovered."

I had one college teacher who would have despised Garrison's use of "perhaps" in the passage cited, calling such use dishonest and a "weasel word."

A speculative question such as this one--"Was the mystic who was born in obscurity angry during this period?" is lazy and and dishonest if it is "answered" with words such as "perhaps" and "maybe." None of the responses given to the question include "No, he wasn't angry." Such writing causes the seed of half-truth or misinformation to be planted. The "History" Channel does this often.

Yeah, it is "weaselly," and often irresponsible to do that. I sometimes wonder how to avoid it though, when addressing things that don't have a clear answer and kind of call out for one - like Lincoln representing slave owners. It doesn't strike me as especially surprising or complicated, as I assume it was because as an attorney he felt obligated to both take the client and follow the law, but it would be presumptuous to assert it as fact. An "it is possible" is better than an unsupported "therefore," but when you have 5 "it is possibles," it doesn't look good.

(05-31-2018 06:44 PM)kerry Wrote:  Yeah, it is "weaselly," and often irresponsible to do that. I sometimes wonder how to avoid it though, when addressing things that don't have a clear answer and kind of call out for one - like Lincoln representing slave owners. It doesn't strike me as especially surprising or complicated, as I assume it was because as an attorney he felt obligated to both take the client and follow the law, but it would be presumptuous to assert it as fact. An "it is possible" is better than an unsupported "therefore," but when you have 5 "it is possibles," it doesn't look good.

I agree. But one beauty (and challenge) of English is that it allows such variety in ways of expression. A way to handle the problem you mention is simply to reduce the number of "it is possible/perhaps" statements from five to, say, two or even three. (Be selective for the reader.) Surely Garrison could have conveyed the spectrum of possibilities with three. But my problem really isn't with Garrison's use of statements--or even assertions--it's with his use of the question format to help speculate: "Was the mystic who was born in obscurity angry during this period?" The only piece of fact here is that Lincoln (a "mystic"?) was "born in obscurity." Then, after admitting that Lincoln's "surviving letters and papers give no clue," Garrison then gives two long, controversial "perhaps" and "maybe" speculative remarks to supply answers to his question. Poor writing.

Is Garrison trying to lead the reader down a path of questionable, alternative interpretation, founded on speculation, which to Garrison seems perfectly logical, in a twisted sort of way?
Is he taking Lincoln's words and actions out of the historical context in which they occurred?
Does he believe Lincoln's actions are based upon his own self interest and that Lincoln believes 'the end justifies the means' ?
Is Garrison looking at society and specifically Lincoln, the events and viewpoints of 1850's - 1860's, from hindsight and a liberal social and political viewpoint of the 1990's?
Is Garrison so personally insecure that he builds himself up by tearing down one who is held in high esteem?
Is Garrison trying to draw attention to himself by being critical of Lincoln?

Perhaps

I only used "perhaps" once.

(06-01-2018 09:38 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Is Garrison trying to lead the reader down a path of questionable, alternative interpretation, founded on speculation, which to Garrison seems perfectly logical, in a twisted sort of way?
Is he taking Lincoln's words and actions out of the historical context in which they occurred?
Does he believe Lincoln's actions are based upon his own self interest and that Lincoln believes 'the end justifies the means' ?
Is Garrison looking at society and specifically Lincoln, the events and viewpoints of 1850's - 1860's, from hindsight and a liberal social and political viewpoint of the 1990's?
Is Garrison so personally insecure that he builds himself up by tearing down one who is held in high esteem?
Is Garrison trying to draw attention to himself by being critical of Lincoln?

It is possible. Actually, Gene, I give a resounding "yes" to each question you raise, especially the last one.

Perhaps

I only used "perhaps" once.