Interview: Lincoln author Richard Lawrence Miller

Richard Lawrence Miller kindly agreed to let me interview him about his new book, Lincoln and His World: Prairie Politician, 1834-1842 (Stackpole Books, 2008). I met Richard last year while we were both on a panel at the Lincoln Library and Museum; he's a very knowledgable scholar, and a very nice guy. I highly recommend this book, which is a fascinating, balanced and insightful study of Lincoln's early years as an up-and-coming Illinois politician.

1. As we all know, there are many new books about Abraham Lincoln appearing on the market recently, particularly with the upcoming bicentennial. What contribution does your work make to this literature?

My emphasis is on Lincoln’s pre-presidential life, which has been examined less than his presidency. The earlier years have been written about of course, but their story has a sweep that I hadn’t seen portrayed. Here is a life beginning in a world no different than the 1600s and ending amidst issues that we still struggle with, a tremendous transformation for both Lincoln and his world.

Too often, what I’ve read in other pre-presidential books is like a detailed account of a world championship cricket match written by someone unfamiliar with the rules. Everything is factually correct, but we’re left wondering why huge numbers of persons were passionately moved by what happened. My Lincoln books strive to present the rules and setting, seeking to restore drama that has faded.

My latest book concentrates on Lincoln’s state legislature years and reveals a lot about his actions. The revelation comes partly from deep examination of primary sources, and partly from interpretations influenced by my political experience. (I’ve worked with many a state legislator, and they seem no different now than in the 1830s.)

For example, Lincoln and colleagues created a government-sponsored railway project that ruined state finances by expending millions of dollars without producing more than a few miles of railroad. Generally that project is portrayed as a folly and a failure. If you view its purpose as railway production, that judgment is correct. My political background helps me to see the project differently, as having little to do with railroads. I portray it as a means of redistributing wealth and of capturing the recipients’ votes. From that perspective the program was a rousing success.

The book also brings out new points about Lincoln’s private life—Ann Rutledge, Mary Owens, Joshua Speed, Mary Todd. And my work silently corrects numerous errors found in other accounts. The first time I discovered a factual mistake in Beveridge I felt sacrilegious! Ditto with chronological error in Lincoln Day by Day. Such glitches remind me that I’m not immune to slip-ups either. One pleasure in my work has been tracing many stories back to their origins, permitting me to evaluate their credibility. Not everyone will agree with my judgments in that regard, but at least they are knowledgeable.

My previous volume in the “Lincoln and His World” series emphasized his frontier background and sought to make that kind of environment vivid. That book shows what a tough character Lincoln was, an aspect of his personality affecting conduct in the White House.
Taken together, the two books demonstrate how the frontier influenced his political behavior, and how his surrounding world dictated what he could—and could not—do regardless of his desires.

2. Your new volume, Lincoln and His World: Prairie Politician, 1834-1842 focuses in particular on his early life and career. Why did you focus your efforts in this area of his life? What did you find in this era that fascinated you?

The presidency, of course, is why his life is important. And many biographers push through 1809–1860 simply as an obstacle delaying the start of the main event. Several things shaped my somewhat unorthodox interest in Lincoln’s earlier years.

From a technical standpoint, telling the pre-presidential story is a human-sized project that I can accomplish without research assistants. I can’t imagine doing a comprehensive serious treatment of the White House years solo, without a staff. Such a project would be too immense, like trying to film a Hollywood movie by yourself.

Historically the oath of office is magical, making a President’s prior life disappear, isolating his White House history on an island. Why did William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge and others made their presidential decisions? A heritage from their earlier years was as important as, say, pressure from Congress. Lincoln’s first half century of life shaped his responses to the presidency’s challenges. To understand his White House conduct you must understand his first fifty-one years.

From a personal standpoint a President’s rise to power intrigues me. I’ll never be called upon to direct armies, liberate enslaved Americans, or inspire our citizenry. But I’ve faced some retail business challenges like those that confronted storekeeper Lincoln. I’ve decided whether to pursue litigation. I’ve gone door-to-door talking to voters. I’ve done other things the pre-presidential Lincoln did, and so have many readers. We can compare our decisions to Lincoln’s, which may give us more understanding of him. We can see parts of his pre-presidential life in our own.

What fascinates me most about Lincoln’s earlier years is how much more democratic that era was, compared to ours. Today we measure democracy by suffrage and elections. We take satisfaction that a black woman’s vote can help choose a U.S. Senator, an impossibility on several levels in Lincoln’s time. But how much influence does an ordinary person have on a member of Congress today?

In Lincoln’s era a few dozen voters in a neighborhood could assemble at any time and pass resolutions to “instruct” an elected official to do something. By custom the official had to obey or resign. That was real “people power.” There were tweaky aspects (dealing with fake meetings or meetings that sent contradictory instructions), but voters vigorously participated in deciding questions of public policy. Much more so than today.

3. Your book has some wonderful analysis and comparisons between Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. How do you feel about the "Little Giant" and his legacy? Does he deserve more credit than he generally receives, or was his great rival Lincoln the better man and politician?

In some respects my book is a comparative biography of the younger Lincoln and Douglas, their different approaches to politics being apparent twenty years before they competed on a national level.

I cannot overstate the contempt and hatred I feel toward Douglas. He was so dishonest. In public debate his specialty was to indignantly deny something he had never been accused of, twist an opponent’s statement into something the person never meant, and change the definition of terms so as to escape accountability. By those techniques he would win an argument, his lies being unapparent in the heat of the moment.

Douglas was a creature of blind ambition. He had no political beliefs. Anything he proclaimed, no matter how fervently, was subject to instant modification if the change would increase his personal power. He wasn’t immoral. He was amoral. That made him anyone’s potential tool. When the Slave Power wanted the Kansas–Nebraska Act, they knew who to turn to.

My latest book documents that legislator Lincoln routinely portrayed his own desires too brightly and his opponents’ too darkly, but his interpretations were within the bounds of honest politics, and had factual bases. Lincoln had political beliefs, and if he altered them, the change was compelled by his discovery of new facts.

Another important difference between the two men is that Douglas pointed Americans toward the past, and Lincoln pointed us toward the future. As a historian, I certainly don’t say the past is without value! But we must prepare to live our lives in the future, and Lincoln sought to help us move in that direction. He occasionally stumbled, but always waved us forward.

4. Where do you come down on the debate about Ann Rutledge? Was she Lincoln's one true love, as Herndon argues?

Ah, Ann Rutledge, apparently beloved by everyone who knew her in life, if not by everyone who has discussed her since. As my volumes maintain, I think she and Lincoln planned to marry. I disagree with Herndon’s contention that Rutledge was Lincoln’s only true love. I think he loved Mary Todd even more. Growth of intimacy with Ann was cut off. Abraham had opportunity to develop a much deeper and longer lasting intimacy with Mary.

5. How do you feel about the relationship between Lincoln and Mary—were they a happy couple, or was theirs a stormy relationship?

Mary Todd was the best thing that ever happened to Lincoln. They were a perfect match. Aside from their shared values, her vivacity surely brightened his spirits, and his steadiness helped keep her on an even keel. In my writing for volume three, I am currently working on Lincoln’s congressional term, and at that time the couple’s words and actions showed devoted love.

I’m still in their first years together, but I suspect reports of their Springfield bickering are exaggerated. Perhaps the most notorious reported incident is Mary brandishing a knife as she chased her husband. That story, however, is thirdhand, and one “hand” belongs to a Lincoln enemy who had been the victim of a political trick by Lincoln.

Apparently the Lincolns grew apart in the White House, not because of any incompatibility but because the President was so engrossed by official responsibilities that family life suffered. And lack of his routine undivided attention probably worsened Mary’s mental stresses.

6. You've also written a fine book on another president, Harry Truman; can you make any comparisons between the two presidents? Were there similarities? Glaring differences?

Both certainly came from non-privileged backgrounds. Both sought to improve lives of ordinary persons but took different approaches. Lincoln wanted to empower people to have more control over their lives. Truman was paternalistic, wanting to improve quality of life for average Americans but not give them more say in running society.

Rhetoric of the 2008 vice presidential campaign incorrectly said Truman was a nobody from nowhere and with no apparent qualifications for the presidency. When Truman was selected for Vice President by Democratic Party leaders he had eight years' experience as county executive running the government of a large metropolitan area, and an additional ten years in the U.S. Senate where he was an expert on banking and stock market policy, railroads, and national defense, while acting as a vigorous advocate for New Deal programs.

A number of persons who knew Truman told me that my book was the first authentic portrayal of the man who they knew. And some politicians told me that I showed how government really operates. I hope my Lincoln project makes a similar contribution.

7. As a Lincoln author and scholar, how do you feel in general about the Lincoln bicentennial—is the country celebrating Lincoln's legacy in a proper manner?

I’m less interested in formal celebrations than in how people celebrate Lincoln in their own lives. How does each of us strive to enable everyone to have opportunity to make the best use of their talents? How does each of us strive to bind up the lingering wounds of racism? How does each of us strive to improve the future that we all will share? Those are things Lincoln worked on and which still need more work. If we’re not making the effort, then Lincoln’s life no longer has meaning for us, making formal commemorations pointless.

8. What does the future hold for you, in terms of Lincoln studies? What's your next project?

I want to carry the Lincoln story to the 1860 nomination and will stop there. I’m working as industriously as I can while I have opportunity to do so. I hope my work will be useful to civilization in future times, as a faithful portrait of Lincoln and his world, withstanding the one question any work of art must answer: “Does it communicate truth?”