From the excerpt I have read of Lincoln’s Boys: John Hay, John Nicolay, and the War for Lincoln’s Image by Joshua Zeitz in the Smithsonian Magazine it certainly seems like it could be a good book. More likely a book for people who have a fondness for history and in this case Abraham Lincoln. The excerpt below gives a little taste of it.
It is little wonder that historians consult Hay’s and Nicolay’s writing frequently—their letters and journals provide eyewitness accounts of their White House years. But their major life’s work after the Civil War is a largely forgotten story.
“The boys,” as the president affectionately called them, became Lincoln’s official biographers. Enjoying exclusive access to his papers—which the Lincoln family closed to the public until 1947 (the 21st anniversary of the death of Robert Todd Lincoln)— they undertook a 25-year mission to create a definitive and enduring historical image of their slain leader. The culmination of these efforts—their exhaustive, ten-volume biography, serialized between 1886 and 1890—constituted one of the most successful exercises in revisionism in American history. Writing against the rising currents of Southern apologia, Hay and Nicolay pioneered the “Northern” interpretation of the Civil War—a standard against which every other historian and polemicist had to stake out a position.
via The History of How We Came to Revere Abraham Lincoln | History | Smithsonian.
I think I am likely to get a copy of this when it comes out, but will see. If you get enjoyment out of learning about history this certainly seems like a book worth checking out.
Yesterday April 12th was the 150th anniversary of the start of the U.S. Civil War with shots being fired on Fort Sumter. The book below that I have included two quotes from the article about it certainly seems like it might be worth reading. Might have to check it out.
“[At Fort Sumter] the Southerners thought that they would be able to drive the Yankees off of Confederate territory, and [they thought that] the North would feel like it wasn’t worthwhile to fight to bring the South back into the Union,” says Goodheart. “Suffice to say, they miscalculated hugely.”
Goodheart is the author of 1861: The Civil War Awakening, a social history of the earliest days of the Civil War, a time when the country — soon to be two separate nations — was preparing itself for battle. He chose the year 1861, he says, because there were so many uncertainties all over the United States.
via Adam Goodheart: Looking At The Civil War 150 Years Later : NPR.
Interesting that as a history buff, I did not know that New York City had talked about secession during the Civil War. As the article talks about, it would have greatly crippled the North because of the huge loss of tax revenue from New York City. Certainly provides some interesting historical what if’s, if New York City had gone had with secession.
In the wake of South Carolina’s vote to secession in late December 1860, Americans both North and South anxiously wondered which state would be next to leave the Union. Little did they realize that the next call for secession would come not from a Southern state, but from a Northern city — New York City.
What’s more, pro-Southern and pro-independence sentiment was widespread in New York, particularly among the merchant class. Their pro-independence stance was partly a matter of economic opportunism: New York was not only the richest and most populous city in the country, but it was also the critical source of federal tax revenue in these days before income taxes.
via First South Carolina. Then New York? – NYTimes.com.