Loathing lincoln is his first book, and he has started a blog. He updates weekly. I highly recommend it. It is very lively. It is loathinglincoln. Com. I highly recommend that to all of you. The book has received a lot of good attention, a lot of praise. I want to read you a couple summaries of what the book must be about. One is by our old friend marco. He said, paradoxically americas most revered president has also been its most reviled. As John Mckee Barr shows in his meticulous survey, detractors of the rail splitter have been a variegated crowd of strange bedfellows. Libertarians, neoconservatives white supremacists, black panthers. States rights advocates, and antiimperialist, among others. The arguments that have overlooked the confederacys central aim the right to own, exploit, and rape africanamericans and their descendents forever. Here is another comment i find particularly amusing, from an unnamed critic. From bitter, defeated critics after appomattox, and academics in our own time, the 16th president has become an historical man for all seasons with each group having its own swing at the abe pinata. For uniquely different reasons. It is amazing how some and he how many sharply opposed groups ideologically can hold a mirror up to this unique figure in American History and find the same monster staring back at them. John mickey barr. Mckee barr. [applause] thank you for having me here this evening. Coming up on this rainy evening it is nice to hear those , comments. Michael was very kind to me at various points. That was nice when he gave a blurb. I was also lucky that my fatherinlaw grew up in a family of eight children, so i was able to go all over the u. S. For free while i did research. This is my wifes uncle, peter gutierrez. I am staying with him in baltimore yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I want to recognize peter and his family for all they have done for me. [applause] the title of my talk is understanding why he was hated in order to understand why he was loved. Loathing lincoln and why it matters today. That is a paraphrase of a quote by William F Buckley junior said the founder of the modern conservative movement. He said it late in his life, around 2002. He said, we cant really understand why lincoln was loved without understanding why he was hated. That is the premise of my book to look at lincolns critics and examine, what did they hate him for . Even lincolns critics, if you think about Jerome BennettThomas Lorenzo junior, they believe what we think about lincoln is very important as a country. On that point, we agree. What i would like to talk about this evening is, i would like to tell you a story about this ongoing argument about who we are as a country, regarding Abraham Lincoln and his critics. The reasons people hate lincoln, they change over time. They never stay the same in any one particular era. None of the criticisms go away entirely. Some are emphasized more in some eras than in others. But the way we think about lincoln and the way his critics think about him changes as our cultural anxiety changes. I would like to focus on the postwar years, 1865 to the present day. Although my book starts in 1858 with the lincolndouglas debates. Because that is where he really came to national attention. Then, i will conclude with why i think this matters. I will then take questions you might have for me this evening. After the war is over, and lincoln has been assassinated, initially, i think, there is this idea of course in the country that this great man we have lost this great man. That wasnt entirely true. There were critics, even within the south, that viewed lincoln not as the savior of the union but as the destroyer of the union. That this old union that had existed before he came along had been destroyed by him. There were a couple criticisms that his critics in postwar years, oddly enough some of them were aided by his law partner. There were a couple major criticisms. One, he was the destroyer of the union. Another criticism and i noticed this in my research they called him the great infidel. When we think of infidelity in our era, that means something to do with sex. But in that era, the 19th century, that meant lincoln was an atheist, or a free thinker. It was herndan who launched the tradition. There were those in the immediate aftermath of lincolns death who said he had been a wonderful christian. Herndon did not agree with that and he said so. Herndon, then wardhill, and a book published in 1873, talked about lincoln as not believing in god. That really did bother people. Especially, you have just been through this bloodletting of 700,000 americans being killed in a war, and the idea that the man who had led the country through the war might not be a believer, that was troubling to people. So there was a sense that he had destroyed the old union. There was a sense that he was an infidel. And then another thing i noticed that crops up is, this is how cultural anxiety shifts. We really admire his background. In our era, students today are inspired by this man who was born into dire conditions, really, and his mother died at a very young age. He manages to become a successful lawyer. And later, the president. That is inspiring. It was inspiring to lincolns generation as well. However, some of his critics found his background what they called disgusting and vulgar. I noticed this cap cropping kept cropping up in phrase after phrase that i have read in my research. His most vociferous critic was a former friend Albert Bledsoe who had worked with lincoln in week whig politics in the 1840s, who later moved south and did research for Jefferson Davis during the war. After the war, bledsoe published a defense of Jefferson Davis. It was called, is Jefferson Davis a traitor. What i want to do is read excerpts from the book. Here is something that bledsoe said in a review, a 40page review of a life of lincoln in 1873. He published it in the southern review, a journal that he edited that had 3000 subscribers. It is fair to say that it probably reached some people in the south, probably some influential people. Here is what bledsoe said in 1873. We think, on the whole, mr. Lincoln was the right man in the right place. No man better than he to represent the northern demos or as Wendell Phillips has it the party of the north against the party of the south. If, as we believe, that was the cause of brute force, blind passion, fanatical hate, lust of power and the greed of gain against the cause of constitutional law and human rights, then who was better fitted to represent it then the than the talented, but low, ignorant, and vulgar rail splitter of illinois . Or if, as we all believe, it was the cause of infidelity and atheism, and against principles and the spirit of the christian religion, who better to let them slip with the fury of the pit than the lowbred infidel of pigeon creek . In whose eyes the savior of the world was an illegitimate child. And the holy mother as they says his own. As base as his own. He could write. He could definitely write. There, you see these things, you hear the word vulgar, you hear the words that there is no morality to what the union did in the war, it was simply brute force, while the southern cause was about constitutional law and human rights. Give that a thought. Bledsoe was a very important critic. You heard the word vulgar in that description. That is something that even lincolns critics conceded, his background as being something that was less than savory. A jurist, later homer plessys lawyer, and he loved lincoln even he called him the great uncouth. That lasted until the 1890s. What happens in america and 1890s . The country begins to expand overseas. Now the criticism, while those criticism i mentioned that lincoln was vulgar and an atheist, those criticisms remain, there is a new one. This idea that he was the first imperialist. He is the great imperialist because he had invaded the south. Just like the United States had invaded the philippines or things of that nature. But Something Else begins to happen around the turn of the century as well. This is where you begin to see the first africanamerican criticisms of lincoln. Why is that . What is happening around the turnofthecentury regarding Race Relations in america . The United States has retreated from the egalitarian promises of reconstruction. In the early part of the 20th century, you get thousands of africanamericans lynched in the country. There are africanamerican thinkers who begin to wonder what did we really gain from the war . Are we really emancipated if we can be lynched at will . And so i noticed, for example, one figure, Archibald Grimke who was a nephew of the abolitionist grimke sisters and a former american diplomat, said this in 1900 about lincoln. It seems to me that it is high time for colored americans to look at Abraham Lincoln from their own standpoint, instead of from that of their fellow white citizens. We have a point of view equally with them for the study of this great mans public life, wherein it touched and influenced our history. And so, this other quote, we can publicly begin to work on intellectual emancipation than with Abraham Lincoln the emancipator. This idea among grimke and other africanamerican thinkers i will read you from in a second, thinkers, that we need to think about lincoln for ourselves, as an Africanamerican Community. Here is what Hubert Harrison he was a radical, associated with marcus garveys the world in the early part of the century. He wrote a series of lectures that he gave about lincoln. He was an important figure in the Africanamerican Community and he said this in one of his lectures. I shall endeavor to show that lincoln was not an abolitionist, that he had no special love for the negro, that he opposed the abolition of the domestic slave trade and he opposed citizenship favor the fugitive slave law that he opposed citizenship for negroes, that he favored making slavery perpetual in 1851, that he denied officially that the war was fought to free the slaves. He did not pay africanamerican soldiers in cold wages. Without these soldiers, he could not have won the war. That the emancipation proclamation was issued, not for the slave trade, but solely as an act to cripple the army of the south. And finally, that it did not abolish slavery and did not intend to. This is what i will prove in regard to lincoln and the members of his party. Or to the man of his party. Excuse me. I am puzzled over this. I thought, how can you have this meeting of what may what next ex confederates are saying and what africanamericans are saying . I dug into it more deeply. Even harrison and grimke, and later w. E. B. Dubois, for said that lincoln was the greatest president of the century. For harrison, the greatest resident America President america had ever had. Harrison, the bar was not set high. Those were things he would hear bledsoe say, or a diehard confederate say. It struck me that this is not loathing. This is disappointment. It is disappointment with the way things had turned out. I think that is an important distinction. A colleague of mine, after she finished my book, she said, it seems to me that if i tell my child that i am disappointed in them, that is one thing. If i tell my child i loathe them, that is Something Else entirely. I think what you see is, you see criticism by the Africanamerican Community that it is criticism borne out of disappointment that the war did not fulfill the promises. The country did not live up to its better ideals after 1877. I think there is a key distinction there that i wanted to make in the book. I hope i made the distinction well. You will have to be the judge of that. Of course, right . I noticed, after world war i concluded, there is this new thing that crops up in lincoln hatred. But it is kind of not a new thing, it is connected to criticism of lincoln as an atheist. It is really this association of lincoln with the people who criticize him, they also hate modernity. So i want to read you a quote from lincoln. I am sure you are familiar with it. But i do want to read it to you. It will set the stage for this. We can set there it is. Lincoln said there it is. Lincoln said, i hold that if the almighty had ever made a set of men that should do all the brunt of the work, he would have made them with mouths only and no hands. If he had ever made another class that he intended to do all the work and none of the eating, he would have made them without mouths and all hands. I think this illustrates something important about lincoln. He has this deep and strong sense that no one position in life should ever be fixed at birth. I think, lincoln even the idea in his speeches that the slaves had interests is a profoundly egalitarian concept if you think about it. In 19 Century America, to say that the slaves in the south they had feelings, they were not hogs and horses, they knew they were wronged, that was profoundly egalitarian. And you do get people in between the wars remember, there are lots of changes going on in america after 1919. Changes intellectually the theory of relativity, the arrival of freud in america the automobile is introduced america is more urban than rural. These changes are very unsettling. To some of lincolns critics. There is also a book published in the 1920s by bruce barton. He, i believe, is the father of william barton, who was a lincoln if i am not mistaken. Is that correct . A scholar of lincolns youth. He published a book called the man nobody knows. He compares lincoln to jesus in the book. This absolutely drove lincolns critics nuts. One thing that happened, also, and i will pass this picture around to you now, there was also a statue of lincoln put in the cathedral of saint john the divine in new york city. I took pictures there this summer, my wife took those pictures, there is a statue of lincoln in the cathedral. A united daughter of the confederacy member named mary carter, related to the lee family by marriage, she actually writes these public letters in the Southern Church magazine an official organ of the it is couple Episcopal Church out of virginia, and i found these at the Virginia Historical society, these big letters editorials on the backs of these church newspapers. She writes the bishop of washington, d. C. , and listen to the language. This is published. As you are aware, she writes there is a very serious religious crisis in this country. The young are drifting away from the home and the churches and into criminal currents. The conclusion is inescapable that one of the major causes of is the absence of christian qualities in the clergy, they fail to attract the young because their character lacks the discriminating and compelling christian virtues. As illustrating this lack, Abraham Lincoln is the only american who to my knowledge ever wrote a book to disprove the bible and the divinity of christ, and called the redeemer of mankind an illegitimate child. Yet, he is the only person in this country who has been universally singled out by clergy to be classed with the christ. Eulogized from our pulpits sabbath after sabbath. There must be something radically wrong with the spiritual perception of our clergy when a man of this type is selected for this placing and honor. What a spectacle. This man selected by the minister of christ as the equal of christ. One thing you noticed, and it probably struck many of you, if you are knowledgeable about lincoln at all and i know you are he went through a period of time when he was skeptical about religion. This is very common to lincolns critics. They will freeze something he said at one point in time and not balance it out with things he said at another point in time. You see mary carter pointing out his infidelity, and ignoring karen brought it up, his second inaugural. If you are talking about the second inaugural, you are talking about gods punishment on the country for slavery. I dont think i ever read or heard a criticism where i do not hear lincolns words quoted back to me from charleston in 1858. I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of equality between blacks and whites. I am paraphrasing. But then you never hear the balancing idea that he signed the confiscation act, that he believed that the slaves had interests. He said, let us quit quibbling about this race or that race. Or, he says how the declaration of independence applies to all people everywhere, forever. You get this imbalance, which is the criticism of lincoln. I think that was something i wanted to bring out in the book. Another critic of lincoln that is important in the 1930s, is also from illinois. That is Something Else i think begins to shift in the 1930s. Largely, prior to the 1930s, the lincoln criticism had been a regional phenomenon. That is understandable in a way, if you think about it. But in the 1930s, Edgar Lee Masters publishes a book called lincoln, the man. He was from illinois. Masters had been upset by carl sandburgs hagiography, biography of lincoln, so masters published a deeply critical book of lincoln. I should say, this line was from masterss book. It stuck with me. He said in one of the lines in the book, that the imperialism of mckinley is not one bit different than the imperialism of lincoln. I think that is the basic thrust of it, anyway. He writes this book, and living in texas, i was fortunate, because Edgar Lee Masterss papers are in the university of texas in austin. There are hundreds of letters from people all over the country telling masters, thank you for what you have done in criticizing this man. Then got for this. Thank god for this. Letters from seattle to san diego to el paso, texas, to alabama to new york city. I think i read at least 150 letters, most of them positive but many quite negative. I thought you would like to hear one or two, if you wouldnt mind. Elizabeth polk from tennessee, i am gratified, lincoln was tricky, sly, a