As a history lover, I'm a bit of a snob. While everyone is rushing to purchase the newest warm-milk entry from David McCullough, I make a show of purchasing turgid, poorly edited treatises put out by university presses about some guy who did something long ago that doesn't really matter anymore. Of course, as every snob eventually learns, being snobbish is like slamming a hammer down on your thumb: you only hurt yourself; and everyone thinks you're an idiot. When it was published, Team of Rivals became the "it" book of popular fiction, achieving something of the mass audience of McCullough's John Adams. That meant, of course, that I put on my beret, grew a pencil mustache, and turned up my nose at the very notion of reading it. While I was ignoring Team of Rivals, however, it did something more than sell millions of copies: it added something to the cultural lexicon.The phrase "team of rivals" is this year's "perfect storm." Used by Doris Kearns Goodwin to describe Abraham Lincoln and his Presidential sounding-board, it has been hijacked by cable newscasters as a quick way to add false insight into President Obama's selection of the Cabinet. To demonstrate my belief that the phrase was overused, I decided to play the "team of rivals" drinking game while watching Wolf Blitzer one afteroon. At some point, I blacked out. Before I did, however, my pillow came to life and told me that Stephen A. Douglas cheated during his debates with Lincoln by using a teleprompter. Then I threw up in the fireplace. Anyway, my point is, I've forgotten what I was talking about, due to the short-term memory loss I have from playing the "team of rivals" drinking game. Now I remember. I eventually got over myself and read Team of Rivals. And it appears that everyone reading it on the subway was right: it's super. Team of Rivals is a Lincoln book that manages to find a fresh angle on a man written about as much as Jesus. Rather than placing Lincoln directly front-and-center, Goodwin focuses on Lincoln's cabinet, providing us with mini-biographies. of Salmon Chase (Secretary of the Treasury), Edward Bates (Attorney General), and William H. Seward (Secretary of State). The book starts with the Republican National Convention of 1860, where Lincoln faced off with Chase, Bates, and Seward (the favorite). This is the best part of the book - learning about the lives of these three exceptional men. Goodwin does an amazing job making these characters come to thrilling life in just a few pages. She weaves them together while highlighting both their similarities and their differences. For instance, she introduces Lincoln's Treasury Secretary:Salmon Portland Chase, in contrast to the ever buoyant Seward, possessed a restless soul incapable of finding satisfaction in his considerable achievements. He was forever brooding on a station in life not yet reached, recording at each turning point in his life regret at not capitalizing on the opportunities given to him.Then there's my favorite character, Edwin Stanton, the beautifully-bearded Secretary of War:Six years younger than Chase, Stanton was a brilliant young lawyer from Steubenville, Ohio. He had been active in Democratic politics from his earliest days. A short, stout man, with thick brows and intense black eyes hidden behind steel-rimmed glasses, Stanton had grown up in a Quaker family dedicated to abolition. He later told the story that 'when he was a boy his father had - like the father of Hannibal against Rome - made him swear eternal hostility to slavery.'Stanton originally thought Lincoln an incompetent boob. Lincoln didn't take this personally, and replaced the actually-incompetent Simon Cameron with Stanton after the first year of the war. The two developed an incredible working relationship, and upon Lincoln's death, it was the distraught Stanton told the world he uttered the immortal phrase: "Now he belongs to the Ages." (Strikingly, no one around Lincoln's death bed remembers Stanton saying this. Maybe he just thought it, and wished he'd said it). After giving us a quadruple bio of Lincoln, Seward, Chase and Bates, the rivals for the nomination, Goodwin takes us through the Civil War. Her focus is not on the ins-and-outs of the various battles, which have been well covered in several million books; rather, she views everything through the prism of Lincoln's cabinet. This is a well-told, lucid, propulsive story. Even someone who's never read a book on Lincoln or the Civil War will follow along just nicely (this is why Goodwin is such a marvelous popular historian, in the vein of McCullough). I do have one major complaint, however, and it is fairly substantive. The book's title and its focus is its thesis: that Lincoln's "team of rivals," his disparate cabinet, was a good thing. This just isn't borne out in the story she tells. Bates, after a big rollout, nearly disappears. Salmon Chase is a wrong fit from the start, and Lincoln eventually has to appoint him to the Supreme Court to get rid of him. Lincoln had to sack Cameron and install Stanton, who eventually turned out to be a good choice. In the end, Lincoln took on a great deal of responsibility himself. Long before Truman, the buck stopped with him. Some of his big moments, such as the Emancipation Proclamation, came as a surprise to his Cabinet. Indeed, the Emancipation Proclamation shows how bad the "team of rivals" idea can be. It sharply divided the cabinet, with Lincoln receiving advice of varying degrees. (Bates and Stanton for it immediately; Chase and Caleb Smith against it). Then there was Seward, a smart man who wasn't as smart as Lincoln: William Henry Seward's mode of intricate analysis produced a characteristically complex reaction to the proclamation. After the others had spoken, he expressed his worry that the proclamation might provoke a racial war in the South so disruptive to cotton that the ruling classes in England and France would intervene to protect their economic interests. As secretary of state, Seward was particularly sensitive to the threat of European intervention. Curiously, despite his greater access to intelligence from abroad, Seward failed to grasp what Lincoln intuitively understood: that once the Union truly committed itself to emancipation, the masses in Europe, who regarded slavery as an evil demanding eradication, would not be easily maneuvered into supporting the South.Here, Goodwin is telling a great story. This is a powerful narrative that takes something we all sorta know about - the Emancipation Proclamation - and gives us all the nitty-gritty details in a fascinating manner. This is what great history writing is all about. However, this scene also helps also demolishes her thesis. This was a bickering, troublesome, quarreling cabinet. Lincoln was left to make his own decisions (though in fairness to Seward, he did have the clever idea of waiting until a victory in battle to announce the Proclamation). I also don't agree with the foundation of Goodwin's thesis: that Lincoln was a dark horse candidate and felt he needed to nominate Seward, Chase, Bates, et al. in order to shore up his Presidency. Lincoln was not the unknown, backwoods rustic portrayed by Goodwin. Rather, he was an extremely talented and successful lawyer; was backed by a coterie of powerful ex-Whigs and Republicans; and had become nationally famous during and after the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Heck, the convention was held in Chicago, Illinois! Coincidence? Hardly. Team of Rivals continues beyond the Civil War and Lincoln's assassination, following the lives of the Cabinet members beyond the Administration. Seward, of course, had the most impact post-Lincoln. His purchase of Alaska ensured our great nation decade-after-decade of iconoclastic, individualistic citizens who hate the intrusion of the Federal Government but love the hundreds of millions of dollars they get from the Federal Government. (Thanks, Seward! Ya big dumb jerk!)The end of the book is touching, powerful, and melancholy. I admit I got chills when Goodwin related a story told by Tolstoy: Tolstoy was visiting a tribal chief in the Caucuses and he was regaling the tribe with stories of Alexander, Frederick the Great and Caesar. When Tolstoy stood to leave, the tribal chief stopped him:"But you have not told us a syllable about the greatest general and greatest ruler of the world. We want to know something about him. He was a hero. He spoke with a voice of thunder; he laughed like the sunrise and his deeds were strong as the rock...His name was Lincoln and the country in which he lived is called America, which is so far away that if a youth should journey to reach it he would be an old man when he arrived. Tell us of that man."If you want to learn about that man, and the great thing he achieved, or even if you think you know the story front to back, this is a readable, genuinely enjoyable addition to the Lincoln canon.

I loved this book. Although it was a beast of a book, and could probably have been a lot shorter. I had not read a Lincoln biography before, so was firstly blown away by how he rose up from nothing, self-taught himself a college degree, and then somehow rode the middle line and got himself elected President. Nobody seemed to have expected that, nor expected much from him, and he continued to surprise them all.I am always curious about the motivations of successful people. In Lincolns case, he just literally seemed to want to have the respect of his peers, and of the American people. Every man is said to have his peculiar ambition, he wrote. I have no other so great as that of being truly esteemed of my fellow men, by rendering myself worthy of their esteem.Lincoln's tactic to make his enemies his cabinet was also interesting and ultimately brilliant. Especially because he was so unknown, but also because they were the strongest options, and would be hard for him to manage. The confidence he had was impressive. Lincoln constantly showed this higher level of trust in people that many wouldn't have given because it didn't make themselves look good. Hiring people who are smarter than you, and giving them credit when things go right, is very hard to do. But Lincoln could afford to trust his people and even hire people like Chase, who was on his staff yet coveted his job, because he was a masterful tactician. He seemed to have a knack for how to position things to the public at the right times to achieve the right outcomes. The main example of this is of course holding back the proclamation of emancipation so the border states didn't slip into the war on the side of south - but there were many more examples. One thing that surprised me was how lax access to the white house and president were back then. You could literally just walk into the White House and get in line to see the President. And he seemed to only have one security guard - who happened to be "off-duty" the night he was killed.I think Lincolns main strength was his empathy. He spent a lot of time trying to understand the people of different states, and putting himself in their shoes and imagining how they felt given what they knew about the situation. A tough, tough thing to do as his whole presidency was during a civil war during which over 600,000 soldiers died. I can't imagine having that on your conscience and trying to internalize that. But a very valuable skill to have as a leader. "Lincoln had internalized the pain of those around himthe wounded soldiers, the captured prisoners, the defeated Southerners. Little wonder that he was overwhelmed at times by a profound sadness that even his own resilient temperament could not dispel."

Put aside whatever you're reading now--yes, even those compelling vampire/romance books--and pick up this book. It's that good. Even though Goodwin is writing about Lincoln's cabinet, her work is eerily contemporary, given Obama's situation. Everyone but a handful of people thought Lincoln had risen too fast and was too untried to take charge of a desperate crises facing the country. Goodwin uses the main characters' diaries, letters, journals, and speeches to show how that opinion gradually changed. If Obama has half of Lincoln's greatness of heart, we are in good hands.

(Please forgive me resorting to a tired trick and leading off with a definition from the dictionary, but there is a point to it.)pol-i-ti-cian1: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government2A : a person engaged in party politics as a profession2B: a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasonsAmericans these days seem to think that 2B is the only definition for the word, and even the first meaning is considered an insult because if you actually know how the government works, then youre guilty by association. Hell, politicians now deny being politicians as they try to get reelected to political office while screaming about how all politicians suck. (Or the Tea Party just finds the angriest moron around to run.)Its weird that its become such a dirty word because one of the greatest Americans by almost any sane persons standard was Abraham Lincoln. While the myth may be that he was just this humble log splitter and backwoods lawyer who bumbled into the White House during one of the countrys darkest hours and fortunately turned out to be the perfect leader for the time, the truth is that Abe was one super bad-ass politician in the sense of definitions #1 and #2A, but luckily 2B didnt apply at all.All American kids hear about Abe in school. We learn about the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address and the 13th Amendment, but they never really tell you how Abe managed to win a war that should have permanently split the country and end an evil institution that even the Founding Fathers had just left as some future generations problem. Reading Team of Rivals gives you an understanding of how Lincoln accomplished this, and the simple answer is that he was a politician of uncanny skill. He had a great sense of timing as well as being empathetic enough to see the other side of any argument while never swaying once he had fully committed himself to a course of action he thought right or necessary. The thing that made him unique was the almost inhuman way he could put his own ego and anger aside to find ways to work with people he had every reason to distrust or even hate. As this book details, Lincolns selection and handling of his own cabinet highlight what made him such a great president. He managed to convince some of the biggest power brokers and politicians of his day, many of whom he had beaten out for the presidency, to work for the common good as members of his administration. Even though this meant dealing with constant bickering and political intrigue, Lincoln still got outstanding achievements from all of them, and most of the men who once saw him as an overmatched fool eventually came to regard him as one of the smartest and most honorable men of the age.Well researched and written in an entertaining style, this book also shows how little has changed in American politics. The tactics of the kind of people who would defend slavery and smear Lincoln seem familiar in many ways. They just used newspapers instead of a cable news channel and talk radio.One odd thing: I started this after seeing the Spielberg movie, and I knew that only a small part of the book was actually about the passage of the 13th Amendment that the movie centers on. However, theres not nearly as much as I thought there would be. It seems like only a few pages are spent on it, so its a little weird that the movie would cite it so heavily. On the other hand, the details of Lincoln's personality in here are all over Daniel Day-Lewiss great performance.

When Rod Blagojevich was impeached and hauled off to prison, that made four of the previous seven Illinois governors to have done time. Countless representatives and aldermen have been locked up, too. Then there was my wifes favorite: a former Secretary of State found after his death to have $800,000 stuffed in shoe boxes. Our reputation for corrupt politicians is, I dare say, unsurpassed. Fortunately, we here in the Land of Lincoln (as we call it on our license plates) have one historical figure capable of tipping the scales back towards respectability.Ive taken a real interest in Abe and his legacy in recent months (more on why in a minute). Of the books Ive read, this one and David Herbert Donalds Lincoln are my favorites. They both deserve credit for finding unique space within what is arguably the most densely populated expanse of American history. Goodwin focused on Lincolns clever leadership in bringing together a group of his former opponents, thinking them to be the most capable cabinet members at a very challenging time. We get thoroughly researched sketches of:Edwin Stanton a bitter rival contemptuous of Lincoln when they were both involved in a famous court case. He called Lincoln a long armed ape, but was subsequently recruited by a magnanimous Lincoln to be Secretary of War and grew to love the President.Salmon Chase one of the founders of the new Republican Party who felt he was owed the nomination that Lincoln ultimately won, later did laudable work as Lincolns Treasury Secretary.William Seward a senator and later governor of New York, was certain he was going to win the nomination in 1860. After Lincoln offered him the Secretary of State post, Seward figured on seizing power by essentially running his own government within the cabinet only to discover Lincolns skill at bringing different factions together. In Sewards capacity as the anti-yes man, he became Lincolns best ally and friend.Edward Bates a senior presence within the party who was coaxed into running against Lincoln in the primaries. After losing that battle he reluctantly took the job as Attorney General for the good of the troubled nation. He initially thought of Lincoln as an incompetent bureaucrat, but ultimately concluded that he was very near being a perfect man. Naturally, most of the spotlight fell on Lincoln himself. Goodwin showed us the tricky waters that led to the Emancipation Proclamation on 4/1/1863 a Good Friday in every way as well as other less famous but still important milestones that required a masterful helmsman. I give her ample credit for underscoring his sound judgment, his political savvy, his wry sense of humor, and his superabundant humanity. So why my sudden interest in Lincoln? I thought youd never ask. Aside from the fact that he is probably the most analyzed and lionized figure in American history, it looks like I have a personal connection as well. I was revisiting some genealogical research Id started years ago, knowing that the internet now reveals more ties than those dusty tomes I used to find in libraries and court houses ever did. One of my ancestors, Joseph Hanks, had a sister named Lucy who Id never bothered following up on before. Anyway, according to ancestry.com, she was the mother of an illegitimate daughter named Nancy who was, by all known accounts, Abes mother. It was one of those can-this-really-be-true moments. But I triple-checked every link and am as sure as anyone can be given existing records that Abe is my second cousin six times removed. Id originally thought to look into a DNA test like the one they did to explain all those red-haired, brown-skinned kids running around Monticello, but then decided against it. I wouldnt know who to contact, it would likely be expensive, and Id rather just assume that its true.Of course I realize this is a watered down relationship, and for all I know hundreds if not thousands of other people can make this same claim. I have to confess, though, that for a while I thought of myself differently. My gaunt face and hollow cheeks were no longer flaws, but indicative family traits. And though I havent tried to grow a beard in years, Im certain if I did, it would be scraggly. I even looked for examples where I could count myself as a cut above in probity, eloquence and fair-mindedness. Before I got to the point of imagining Daniel Day-Lewis playing me in a biopic of my soon-to-be famous life, I realized that I was still just me a guy who needs to remember that humility is one of his few attractive traits. Besides, (this is the really weird part) I did more digging into my family roots and discovered that my great-great-grandmother, Cora Claudine Flickinger from Byhalia, Ohio had a sister named Lula Dell Flickinger who the internet shows was the grandmother of one Barbara Pierce Bush. That makes me a somewhat less diluted third cousin once removed of George W. Bush. Suffice it to say I now think of these genealogical ties as less meaningful. I lack the power and initiative to unshackle an oppressed segment of society, but then I dont feel any compulsion to invade Iraq either.So please understand Im not obsessed by my connections, but today of all days, after reviewing this wonderful book, I feel enough of a kinship to quote my famous cousins. As Lincoln said, You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Cousin Dubya modified the quote (for real) observing that, You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.Are any of you picturing Pinocchio in a jesters hat right now, perhaps in place of a white Rubiks cube? Any theories on why I feel compelled to do this? Im curious myself. Am I dissatisfied with reality and need the artifice to spice things up? (No, Im luckier than most and I know it.) Am I simply attempting to entertain? (Hmm sounds a little too noble and generous probably not.) Am I trying to switch the focus away from anything relevant to shine the light on me, myself and I? (Thats probably closest to the mark. Either that or Ive got a genetic predisposition for dishonesty.) If theres any good thats come of this, its that Im now truly eager to read Team of Rivals.