Since historians, as well as other writers, started writing about Abraham Lincoln, there have been those who have worked hard to give us a well-rounded image of the 16th president. Lincoln is the most written about figure in American history and hundreds of books about him are published each year. Our historical knowledge of Lincoln is pretty great and there are numerous scholarly and popular works examining various aspects of his life, political career, presidency, and political and racial views.

Over the past few years various writers, most of them hold no professional historical credentials, have set out to take on the Lincoln myths, which they believe are being passed off as historical fact. These ‘myths’ have already been researched and written about in great detail by real historians and these writers are giving the American reading public pseudohistorical trash. The historical equivalent of a John Grisham, Nora Roberts, Tom Clancy or any other modern day dime novelists who are trying to pass as serious writers.

These dispellers of Lincoln myths seem to focus on a few key aspects of Lincoln’s life or political career. And they get everything horribly wrong.

Here are some of the key issues:

1. Lincoln was a racist. The most famous, or infamous, writer to argue this is Lerone Bennett. In 1968, Bennett published an article in Jet that argued that Lincoln was a white supremacist. A few years ago he published a 600 plus page screed, entitled Forced into Glory, detailing Lincoln’s racism. This point about Lincoln being a racist is partially true. Let me emphasize the word partially. Did Lincoln hold some believes that were racist? Of course he did! After all, he was the product of 19th Century America, which was a fairly racist society. The ‘dispellers’ usually point to a few phrases from the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 or certain lines from letters to prove their point. However, focusing on a few phrases in the millions of words that Lincoln uttered or wrote throughout his political career proves nothing beyond the fact that ‘dispellers’ have way too much time on their hands. Lincoln did hold some racist views, but overall Lincoln was more progressive in his racial views than most of his contemporaries. He was fervently anti-slavery, which is evidenced in the fact that he joined the an anti-slavery party, the Republican Party, and then became their presidential candidate running on an antislavery platform.

2. Lincoln did not want to end slavery, but wanted only to preserve the Union. This is also partially true. In the first year or so of the Civil War, Lincoln’s paramount goal was to preserve the Union. Yes he was anti-slavery, but how could he have abolished slavery without restoring the Union first? To prove that he was solely concerned with preserving the Union, ‘dispellers’ usually point to the famous letter Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley in response to Greeley’s call for immediate emancipation. The August 1862 letter stated: “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.” What these people fail to realize, or just plain ignore, is that this letter was written after Lincoln decided to follow a course of emancipation. Lincoln made this decision in mid-summer 1862, at least a month before the letter to Greeley was written, but was persuaded to wait until after a smashing Union victory on the field of battle to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.3. Lincoln’s proclamation did not free any slaves. Technically, this is true. The Emancipation Proclamation only pertained to the areas of the Confederacy that were not under union control and still in a state of rebellion. Lincoln did not have the power to free the slaves, but he had the authority to do so. He used his authority to make Emancipation a war goal and a tool to wage his war. The Emancipation Proclamation essentially made the Union Army a tool of emancipation. Where ever the army went, that area’s slaves would be freed. ‘Dispellers’ also make the point that Lincoln’s proclamation did not touch slavery in the slave states, or border states, that remained in the Union. In regards to the border states, Lincoln had to constantly walk a tight rope. In order to win the war Lincoln had to keep these states in the Union and interfering with slavery within these states may have pushed them to join the Confederacy. Well, this is what Lincoln feared. This is not to say that Lincoln did not try to abolish slavery within the border states. He came up with a plan of gradual emancipation that he wanted to implement in those states, which he tested in Delaware, but the plan was not well received.

4. Lincoln was gay. This is a fairly new claim. It has been tossed about by that intellectual fraud Gore Vidal and most recently by the late C.A. Tripp. They call attention to the fact that Lincoln shared beds with other men. They also fail to place this fact, and others, within the context of the time period. In the west, Illinois was considered the west at the time, people did have many possessions. Not everyone owned a bed. So, it was fairly common for men to sleep in the same bed with other men. If this makes Lincoln gay than almost the entire American male population at the time was also gay. They also point to certain phrases in letters that Lincoln wrote. They also examine some of the relationships Lincoln had with other men and his supposed loveless marriage to Mary Todd. There is just no evidence to support these claims and real historians dismiss them all.

I feel this video clip is a good example of some of the arguments that ‘dispellers’ like to make.

I have just come across a Ted Alexander’s 2001 North and South article entitled “A Regular Slave Hunt.” This article highlights a sad and little known aspect of Lee’s Gettysburg campaign. Alexander wrote that in June and July 1863 Confederate forces rounded up hundreds of free blacks and escaped slaves throughout southern Pennsylvania.

Alexander has provided evidence, eyewitness testimony, to show that Confederate forces participated and what amounted to slave hunting. Some of the most disturbing evidence came from Rachel Cormany, who left a detailed account of some of the abductions. Cormany wrote: “[Confederates] were hunting up the contrabands [escaped slaves] and driving them off by droves. O! how it grated on our hearts to have to sit quietly and look at such brutal deeds–I saw no men among the contrbands–all women and children. Some of the colored people who were raised here were taken along–I sat on the front step as they were driven by just like we would drive cattle…One woman was pleading wonderfully with her driver for her children–but all the sympathy she received from him was a rough “March along”–at which she quickened her pace again.” Alexander was not precise about how many blacks were captured by Confederates; an estimate for Chambersburg places its count at 250 and an estimate for York states that a little more than 100 were abducted in this town.

Alexander went on the state that most of the Confederates who participated in these kidnappings were guerrilla forces who “operated on the fringes of Lee’s army.” He did provide evidence that General James Longstreet knew about these abductions and that the famed General George Pickett’s division participated in the kidnappings. Alexander, however, left some rather important questions unanswered. Were the orders to abduct free blacks and escaped slaves general orders or were they issued independently of the high command? To what extent did Lee’s regular forces participate in the kidnappings? We know that Pickett’s division participated, but did others do the same? This is a disturbing aspect of the Gettysburg campaign that deserves to be fully examined, but, unfortunately, Alexander’s article leaves us with more questions than answers.

In a recent essay, published in the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Erika Nunamaker examined Abraham Lincoln’s “egalitarian refinement.” “Egalitarian refinement,” according to historian Joyce Appleby, can be described as “an oxymoron that nicely captured the split personality of American society, with its yearning for the manners of the better sort and appreciation of the vernacular culture of ordinary folk.” Nunamaker wrote that Lincoln, in 1837 when he was just starting his career as a lawyer, purchased a expensive horsehair couch. He defied all cultural customs of the antebellum gentry by reclining and spreading out on the couch while reading. Lincoln’s to purchase such a couch shows his desire to be thought of as a gentleman, but his improper use of the couch illustrates “his refusal, whether conscious or unconscious, to resort to affecting behaviors or aping manners that did not come naturally to him.”

Nunamaker’s propose in writing this essay was to call attention to a wealth of primary sources that have been largely ignored by historians and Lincoln scholars. Studies in historical material culture reveals what peopled desired to own and what objects they bought. Examining Lincoln’s furniture, as Nunamaker has done, shows how Lincoln was influenced by common cultural assumptions and how he defied them. There are tens of thousands of books on Lincoln, but the examination of the objects he bought demonstrates that there is still much we can learn about this man.

Earlier this week the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) released its annual report on the country’s most endangered Civil War sites. Here is the list of the 10 most endangered sites in America: Antietam, Md., Cedar Creek, Va., Cold Harbor, Va., Hunterstown, Pa., Monocacy, Md., Natural Bridge, Fla., Perryville, Ky., Prairie Grove, Ark., Savannah, Ga., and Spring Hill, Tenn.

The CWPT also named 15 sites that are at risk. Among the at risk sites are Brandy Station, Va., Kennesaw Mountain, Ga., and Petersburg, Va.

A little over a week ago Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton participated in the twentieth presidential debate. The Republicans have also held countless debates over the past year. With John McCain as the Republican nominee and the Democrats thinned out to just two contenders the general election will soon begin bringing the promise of yet more debates. One would think that with the sheer number of debates that have taken place, then the American people must be the most informed electorate in all the world. This presumption is dead wrong. These debates that we have had to endure were not true debates and pale in comparison to a series of seven debates between the two candidates who were campaigning to be a senator from Illinois in 1858. These two men, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, participated in seven debates with each lasting for about three hours. At the heart of these debates was the issue of slavery and the fate of the Republic. These debates were racially charged and were not short on sexual innuendos. Here is an interesting article on the debates written by historian Allen Guelzo.

All the hoopla surrounding the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln has led some to ask how should we, as a society, remember the 200th birthday of his Confederate counterpart, Jefferson Davis (1808-1889). A recent AP story reported on the struggles encountered by the Confederate president’s descendents in their attempt to comemorate his legacy. (read the story here) At the heart of this issue is the topic of memory. How do we, as a people, remember the past.? It’s not just about remembering, but how people construct the meanings and symbols they apply to history. What average peole say history means is usually much different than how historians explain and assign meanings to the past. Over the past decade or so, professional historians have started to examine historical memory. The most famous example of this scholarship is David W. Blight’s Race and Reunion, which examined the historical memory of the Civil War.