What is your opinion on Carl Sandburg?

[Rob Wick]

Bill, it's great to hear from you. One of these days we'll have to get the Lincoln Nerds together and rent out Sandburg's house in Harbert.

Steve, I completely understand what you're saying. I would even add that given the vast number of Lincoln resources available, one would find it near impossible to utilize everything.

I wonder if maybe there's a generational thing at play here. Sandburg died in 1967, so anyone born up to 1970 (or maybe even the mid 1970s) would have been far more likely to have heard of him had they expressed interest in Lincoln. As time progresses, we replace memories with things that are more current and relevant to our thoughts. I also wonder about the geographic influences. Myself, Bill, Roger, GustD45, and forum member Joe Di Cola (who met Sandburg in Chicago) are all from or have lived in the Midwest. I went to college in central Illinois where (at least in the Eastern Illinois University history department) the respect for what I call the "Springfield Clique" (Randall, Angle, Thomas, Allan Nevins and to a lesser extent Sandburg) was remembered fondly and in a couple of cases, remembered first-hand. Some of Sandburg's critics regarding his poetry have claimed he was a regionalist poet and unworthy of a national reputation.

Quote: I do think that he wrote about Lincoln for the popular reader, and any evaluation of his biography needs to be made in light of that.

Dave brings up a point that I think is highly relevant here. Do reviewers have a duty in their review of a book to consider whom the author is writing for, or are there a set of standards placed in concrete that all authors are required to follow? One might say of course the reviewer should do that, but what then of those standards we as historians constantly mention? One of the sharpest criticisms from vocational historians against Sandburg was that he eschewed footnotes. Even I, as sympathetic as I am to the avocational historian (given that I am one), understand that objection. It was one I made against James Swanson's book Manhunt, which had footnotes, but ones which were generally worthless, especially in comparison to other popular writers such as David McCullough or Doris Kearns Goodwin. In fact, I am more sympathetic to the notion that Sandburg made numerous mistakes (many of which were corrected in later editions, and given that the Prairie Years went on for about half a million words, understandable) than that there were no citations.

And yet, Sandburg himself never claimed that he was a historian or was writing with the historian's precepts in mind. But does that absolve him? If you would ask a selection of people who read history regularly whether they look at the footnotes of a book when deciding whether or not to make the investment, I would say that a small mnority do, but the vast majority wouldn't care. Most people who buy trade publications are looking for an interesting story and are uninterested in critical reading. I'm not suggesting that they would blindly and carelessly accept false information as a rule, but would be more likely to look over a lack of citations if the story was rousing and held their interest.

Best
Rob