my impression half way through (just at fort sumter) this Lincoln bio so far is:
(1) surprising the number of compromises Lincoln had to make in some of his early senatorial bids to the more southern friendly voters. You think of something as awful as slavery and think that everyone should just categorical be 100% opposed to it (which is true, duh). But Lincoln had to make a lot of political statements like he was 'opposed to the extension of slavery', or what not. And I wonder how much he would have progressed early in his career without those concessions.

(2) relieving to think that even Lincoln didn't know jack-shit his first days on the job and made some executive/procedural errors. Makes me feel a little better about whenever i'll have to start a job I know jack shit about .

also, FUCK McClellan.

Finished Pierre Hadot's Philosophy as a Way of Life, which is fantastic. On a similar theme, I've started Foucault's The Hermeneutics of the Subject. I'd already read the first half of the first lecture, and I just finished re-reading it—this book is going to be incredibly important for me, I think.

I'm also reading Sextus Empiricus' Outlines of Scepticism. Not in great depth, just something I'm keeping on my desk at work for when I need a ten minute break from work. And, for work, aside from multitudes of papers, I'm reading Freud's An Outline of Psycho-Analysis so that I can teach it to undergraduates.

Heh, that's one of the foundational texts for that Cultivation of the Self class I decided not to take.

I was introduced to it in a history of science seminar, of all things.

What are the other books for that class, besides the Foucault?

I think I will just post this.

Ok that looks fucking amazing and I think you are crazy for not taking it whatever you might say about the professor unless your reason for not taking it was something else and I'm misremembering, like if your reason was that it would mean you take too many classes outside your department in which case you are marginally less crazy than otherwise but let's be clear only marginally.

The reason I didn't take it was because it was either that or William James and I preferred James. And frankly that is way too much Foucault for me to be reading in a condensed class setting. I like him but after awhile I need to take breaks.

I can't argue with that because James is the shit.

Wait, this might sound stupid, but is that a French Class? It's course title is Fren 770, and all the readings, minus the latin ones and Judith Butler, are french authors.

The professor is officially a member of the French & Italian department so the official listing is under French, but it's also cross-listed as a Comp Lit, Philosophy, and Religion/Theology class. If you look up those ISBN numbers the books are all English translations. This seems to be fairly common at Emory's grad school, at least (I was in a Film Style seminar that was cross-listed as Comp Lit, and the William James course is listed as Philosophy, Psychology, and Religion/Theology).

I'm about 2/3 through The Corner by David Simon and Ed Burns and jesus christ it's the most heartbreaking fucking thing

brief review of Lincoln biography. Also on goodreads (https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/23734106-lucas-jackson?shelf=read) . DDD peeps add me.

Having started this book with my only knowledge of the Civil War and Lincoln coming from high school classes 5 plus years ago, I was a little intimidated by the 600 pages of text and expected a rather dense affair. I was pleasantly surprised to find it to be a very 'easy' read. Even when the author delved into the details of the various internecine conflicts, the writing was clear and concise, which is about as much as you can ask for from a historical biography. And actually, after finishing the book, I felt that this was only a cursory covering of his term and policies (for instance, it mentions that Lincoln created the Department of Agriculture, but little more is said about it). On the whole, the book made me interested in reading more about the Civil War and even about Lincoln and Lincoln's writing.

I will just mention a few parts of the book that I found interesting...

First, it's amazing just how little executive experience Lincoln had coming into office (ie, none). And it was amusing to see how he struggled to learn the rules and procedures in his earliest days ( for instance he tried to create a Bureau of Militia without congressional approval). This is also a nice reminder that even great men need to start form somewhere.

I did wonder if this inexperience hampered his presidency. Specifically, he was reluctant at first to order his generals, and in his letters to McClellan he frequently suggested and sometimes even urged different plans or attacks, but never ordered them. McClellan was of course notoriously slow and failed to capitalize in battle. But had Lincoln been more forceful in executing his plan of war and insisting McClellan to move, could some of the earlier stalemates in the war have been prevented? Of course, the problem was that the General vastly overestimated the confederate forces in battle, so higher up management may not have changed that. The Army of the Potomac probably just needed a better general.


It was also interesting to see Lincoln's view towards slavery and his framing of the war: he insisted that the war was about the UNION and not slavery for the first four years. Politically, this was understandable. Because while the northern states were strongly abolitionist, the border states-which played a crucial role in the war-were not. Even parts of Maryland deeply resented the abolitionist. So framing the war in this manner gave him more support (though he was continually urged to make some sort of statement about slavery by the radical members of his party).

It wasn't until the middle of his term that he issued his emancipation proclamation, and even then he made it clear that this was strictly a measure of war. He would later go on to claim that the emancipation would not apply in non-war conditions, and tried to use this (unsuccessfully) bait the southern states back into the union. From his personal letters it was clear Lincoln wanted to rid the country of slavery, but politically he was in a conundrum of how to approach this throughout his presidency. In one of his public statements he summed up his policy best as:

"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"

This then was how he argued for emancipation: it was a measure of war which would help weaken the south ans thus save the union; it was not a humanitarian effort.

One can only speculate as to what Lincoln's full approach would be to reconstruction. He did publicly state that he wanted to give (certain) blacks the right to vote, but he also urged leniency towards the south. In his famous 2nd inaugural he famously stated "With malice toward none, with charity for all..." and refrained from attacking the south. In retrospect, I do wonder if maybe Lincoln could have been stronger in his resolve to end slavery, and grouped himself more with the Radicals of his party. Some political maneuvering was no doubt necessary when he had to recruit states to his cause, but when it became clear that the south was going to be stubborn and continually refuse to compromise, maybe then he could have laid down the law, so to speak? He would have no doubt lost supporters, and even upset some in his cabinet, but he would have always had the majority of the North East on his side and his executive will over the inefficient quarreling of congress. But then, this is complicated by the fact that he needed the support to run for the second term and complete his work. It's all hard to say. And for all the criticism and second guessing that can be said now, there is no doubt that Lincoln was a great man in his efforts to save the union and a honest man . As Harriet Beecher Stowe said of him " Even an ass can kick safely an joyfully at a lion in a net".

Oh, and just one more comment on the book, it does end rather abruptly. And afterword would have been nice.

What does it say about his vampire hunting?

that's one of the parts I felt the author was a little weak on