[laughter] >> do we have other questions or comments? yes. >> [inaudible] >> okay. the question is she had five children, did she spend time with them? in common with the upper crust of that era, when the children were little, she really turned over a lot of their care to nurses and governorrer necessaries and hired help. in the later years of her life, one of the reasons that she traveled so much was to go around and see a lot of her children. they'd scattered all over the country, and they were always in the some sort of trouble, made some sort of embarrassing headline in the newspaper. >> for example? >> well, elliot roosevelt never went to college. he was kind of a bad boy. but he would get very good jobs

and then the republicans would say, well, he's just trading on his father's name. well, he probably was. and some of the children would be hired by political opponents of the roosevelts sort of to embarrass the roosevelts, but also to kind of keep a foot in the white house. hearst, for example, hired anna, the daughter, and her husband to run the newspaper. .. >> we tallied them up for what

we did. it was a much bigger deal. vanik is now. they did have a fractured personal relationship. that was embarrassing. other questions or comments? >> on that subject, having my possessions by others and apologized about whatever of they had gotten. and the letter said it is all right -- have to wipe out those things. both of the policy angles and the women's angle. and on women's pages, she used

both of those to get to the public. >> not sure what this could have been but might have been driving improperly were something. something like that seems relatively trivial but -- are there other questions? we have something here? >> i was impressed when i read a biography to find out what you mentioned was a finishing school or what it was but i understand from one biography that it was a very good school. it was run by an intellectual frenchwoman who wanted to stay for her fourth year of high school and relatives in new york with whom she lived did not allow her to stay.

>> her grandmother said she had to come to -- she was afraid she wouldn't be really popular. her mother was one of the great beauties of new york society and when eleanor was a little girl, something like you had better be good. eleanor did not have good memories of her mother. he was a desolate individual who died in and drunken stupor. to that side of the family and the father and mother split up. eleanor had a miserable childhood. >> there is a picture.

[inaudible] >> thank you so much. [applause] >> this book is part of the university press of kansas modern first lady series. for more information visit kansaspress.edu. >> is there a nonfiction of tour or book you would like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv/c-span.org. up next, phyhllis schafly and suzanne venker discuss "the flipside of feminism". women have more power, freedom and education but are less happy. they believe men have been miscast as obstacles on the path to equality for women and

contend both sexes have been hurt by feminism. >> i had an interesting and fun life and i don't owe any of it to the feminists. feminism has become a very hot topic. i suppose the reason for that is sarah palin. a feminist cannot resist attacking sarah palin. it is not just because she is a republican and a conservative but because she is a successful woman. she has a cool husband, a great career, making lots of money. she is by any standard a success and they can't stand it. and she is pretty too. feminists don't believe what women can be successful in the united states. they think women are oppressed by the patriarchy. they are held down by mean men.

they need the government to rescue them and give them more advantages. that is very unfortunate but you never hear them talk about successful women. margaret thatcher, condoleezza rice, what about the wonderful women who were elected last november 2nd? they were all republicans and they were all pro-life and that wasn't what the feminists planned at all. and the equal rights amendment, they did not believe i was doing what i did. they conjured up a conspiracy like the insurance companies were financing some other nonsense like that. this ideology of telling young women you are victims of an oppressive society is so unfortunate. if you wake up in the morning and believe that you are not

going to accomplish anything whether you are a man or a woman. many of the real feminists, most of them think that abortion is the litmus test for being a feminist. one of the new feminists wrote in the washington post a few weeks ago the definition of feminism is we are under a patriarchy and and they have to work to overturn it and stop it. so that is what feminism is. it is also not true that they're working toward equality. the feminists are for empowerment by the female left. they are not empowered all women. they want to make an alliance with the left wing and so it is the female left that has become so powerful when it allies itself with the obama

administration. what the feminist movement got underway, in the late 60s and 70s they called themselves not feminism. they called themselves the women's liberation movement and you have to ask what did they want to be liberated from? they wanted to be liberated from home, husband, family and children. so you find they were encouraging women to be independent of men which is why they were big supporters of divorce and looked upon marriage as a very confining role in life. gloria steinem said what a woman gets married she becomes a non person. betty friedan said the life of a wife and mother was living in a comfortable concentration camp.

that was their attitude. the social degradation of women was a major goal of the feminist movement and it wasn't -- they were not using the argument that it takes two incomes to support a family. that was not why they wanted to get out of the home. they wanted to get out of the home not for economic reasons but for social and cultural reasons because they tried to tell women you are just a parasite, life is not accomplishing anything. the only way to have fulfillment is to be independent of men and have your own career. it is interesting when they have a divorce, all-time griping because men have the diapers and watching half the dishes and getting up half the time in the middle of the night to take care of a baby wanting to do 50/50 but once they have a divorce they think only the mother can handle it.

they went solo and exclusive custody and the father to become a visit of in his child's life maybe twice a month. they taught young women that their only fulfillment is in the labour force, referring to a boss instead of a husband and they thought that was so great they wanted to treat men as irrelevant, unnecessary, and also entire masculine which we see in what they have accomplished with their agents in the department of education through title ix. they have been on an anti man campaign to get rid of men's sports in college and now working on the high school. there's a cultural difference between the way men watch sports in college and women. when i went to college i did

everything to avoid any kind of sports. but the men like it and they have gotten the colleges to cancel hundreds of men's sports but the one that annoys me the most is they have gotten colleges to ben 450 wrestling teams. tell me what that does for women? it shows me this campaign has nothing to do with equalizing the money spent on sports because wrestling is the cheapest sport you can have. all you need is a match. that is one of the things they have done and they are proud of that and have this idea that men and women are really the same and only the patriarchy is keeping them down. it is tongue and the women's studies course and other social it -- sociology courses too. when i started fighting of the

feminist movement, it seemed odd goofed in making this two different kinds and they took it as their responsibility to correct his mistake or should i say her mistake. now they seem to have shifted to the different theory that god got it all right in the first place and the differences we think we see are in social constructs built in to buy your stereotypes of bringing, the terrible thing that mothers give their girl babies balls and their boycott babies trucks. so a lot of what they're doing is based on this ridiculous idea that there isn't any difference emotionally, culturally or sexually or any other way between men and women. in fact in a lot of colleges you can't get a grade in the women's studies department unless you

buy into their philosophy. so many lies that they talk. feminism is a fraud of the century but one of the lies is there's no difference between men and women and that is simply not true. another line is that the hook up culture is liberating and they tell girls to be equal you have to engage in sex and be as promiscuous as men are alleged to be. that is a dead end for girls as i am sure many of you know. then they tell girls that you have got to structure your life so that you have a career and there isn't any space for a marriage and babies. and a lot of feminists have discovered after 40 that there was indeed a biological clock

which they deny and many have written bitterly. one of their chief fears, germaine greer wrote bitterly about her effort to have babies after she was 40. i have medical bills to prove it. another one who you see some time on public television made a very bittercomment in her book about how she longed for the baby she would never have. sylvia a few let wrote a book in which she thought she made an amazing scientific discovery that women over 40 are less fertile than women under 40 and her book didn't sell very well. people didn't want to hear that. another example is the oppression of the patriarchy,

society expects others to look after the baby's. this burden has got to be lifted from women. taxpayers should be responsible for providing taxpayer paid day care. this was a tremendous fight that we fought around 1988, 89, 90 to try to established federally financed, federal regulated day care for all children. nothing to do with the need for it but just as a matter of course to lift the burden off of women's backs and we beat them on that. i noticed bernard goldberg wrote in his book about the bias of cbs and the biggest story you will never see on cbs is what is wrong with day care because the feminists and the network will

not allow that on as a story on cbs. another myth that is created is the feminist movement has created so many opportunities for women. there are a few opportunities. you can get a job in a coal mine if you want to end a few jobs like that. but i remind people i work my way through college as a gunner working the night shift in an ammunition plant and got my degree from university in 1944 with no discrimination. i got my master's at harvard graduate school. absolutely no discrimination. my mother got her college degree from a great university in 1920. those opportunities were there. women wanted to take advantage of them. most of my friends preferred to get married and have babies.

that is a matter of individual choice. they don't respect us the individual choice. the big mama of feminist movements taught in women's studies courses, of french woman who wrote single-sex said that you should not give women the choice to have a career or be full-time homemaker because if you give them the choice too many women will make that choice. they understood that but didn't want them to have the choice because they wanted to get all the women in the workforce. i am known for defeating the equal rights amendment in a ten year battle. what got me on to that is prior to that i was writing and selling books on politics and on the strategic balance. and a benefit to women and put

women in the constitution. i testified in 41 state legislative hearings. we have a lot in this state, that discriminate against women that would remedy, and homemade wine without consent. for this we need to make up the constitution? and put women in the constitution but men are not in the constitution. the constitution is a beautiful document that only talks about citizens and residents and a lack tours and presidents and senators and representatives. women have every constitutional right that men have and have had since the constitution was originally ratified. it was such a fraud. what er a would have done was

make all laws sex neutral. classic sex specific law was the draft registration law which said male citizens of age 18 must register. i had sons and daughters about that age and my daughters thought this was the greatest thing they ever heard. you're going to give women a new constitutional amendment and the first thing is we have to sign up for the draft? we were still in the vietnam war so the whole idea of feminism is a fraud. it is worse than a fraud because it is leading young women down a dead end road. that is why i was so happy to have the collaboration of my knees his speech to the issue from the young regeneration in a voice and work that appealed to the younger people and they think i am an old fogey.

and writing about the obsolete version of marriage some people are clinging to. and the young people's view.and we provided a book that is a road map for a happy life for young women and also a warning to the guys about what you can say now but we hope to open up so you will be able to talk more frankly about some of these issues. the flip side of feminism but conservative women no end to can say. thank you for listening. [applause] >> it is so great to see so many young ladies here.

you are the group we are most trying to reach through this book because i truly believe it is your age group getting such a bad message today. it is often said that when something gets repeated often enough people ultimately accepted as true for. with no other subject is the psychological phenomenon more applicable then feminism. the modern generation has absorbent feminism like a sponge. they believe essentially what they have been taught to believe. they think a feminist is strong and independent. they think feminism is what allowed women to get college careers and pursue careers outside the home. they also believe that feminism freed mothers from their cages and we all have seen in hollywood movies that have

depicted the 1950s mother who was so despondent after her last child goes off to kindergarten and she is alone and doesn't know what to -- to give you some evidence that this is how the modern generation thinks i thought i would read some comments that were made on line. as a result of two publications in the huffington post and boston university which is my alma mater there were several articles about "the flipside of feminism" and several thousand responses from a angry women. who were clearly raised by baby boomers. my mother raised me not to depend on anybody but myself and that is hard to do but my happiness depends on it.

if suzanne venker and phyhllis schafly had any sense they would be grateful that they have college education. were it not for feminists, suzanne venker would never have gone to college and in a published author. obviously it is ok for women to have a career as long as it involves putting women down and putting them in their place, at home, barefoot and pregnant and submissive when every man is present. that is what i tried to do in "the flipside of feminism". women after all this time are equally educated and equally experienced to male character parts. we are penalized for having a woman. my favorite one, feminism saved us from the horrors of the role women were expected to play in the early half of the 20th century. anyone who denies that is just insane. that should give you a flavor of the kind of knee-jerk responses

that anyone who speaks against feminism is going to get. that is why we say what clinton can say. is worse if a man says it. that would never fly but if a woman says it she is a traitor to her sex. feminism means different things to different people. we prefer to use the definition that phyhllis schafly mentioned from jessica valenti who is the head on joe ogilvie if there wave feminist movement. she provided in the washington post a working definition for feminism. she said feminism is a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women. and ideology based on the notion that patriarch needs to amend. this is what it means to think

like a feminist. they believe it is your world view era feminist but ba feminists does not mean being strong and independent. and the opposite is dependent on a man, a husband to uncle sam. feminism is not what allowed women to get college degrees and pursue careers. we have men and technology to thank for that. that is a completely new concept for young men because they never heard that before. that is what we mean in "the flipside of feminism". how does feminism becomes overly absorbs american culture? very easy. it is women on the left who hold power in this country. there is a chasm between everyday american women who are the right of center bunch and the women you see in television,

magazines, movies and academia. those women are left wing. their message conflicts with the message that most young women need and want. what are some of these myths? there are a bunch. i will focus on three. the first is the wage gap. i am sure you have heard endlessly lately in the media about how women still don't make what men make throughout their lifetime. constantly harping on this gender gap. there is a gender gap. there is a wage gap. they used the phrases. they're always will be but there is a good reason for it. when the women become mothers say freely choose to care for those children. that means they will be out of the work force for period of time. some people is five years and for some it is ten and for some 20. maybe they don't ever go back.

most women take time off to care for those children. when they do return the personal most return on a part-time basis and asked after the child has trotted off to kindergarten and don't take a dangerous and unpleasant jobs men do. at those things up and there's a good reason very same wage get. but that is not what the -- that is not the message you get from the media. the women in the media don't explain that. they just tell you women despite all the gains they have made still don't make what men may, making you think women are discriminated against. phyllis brought this up as well. casual sex is somehow liberating. the more sex you have or the freer that you are with your body is somehow meaning you own your body and it is an powering and liberating.

it is a horrendous message. we have copious amount of research in it flip side that is very politically incorrect that will tell you the truth about the horrible fallout of what we call hookup culture. we have in the appendix excerpts from an excellent pamphlet that dr. miriam grossman put together concerning this issue. also, phyllis mentioned the other myths are was going to talk about which is the idea that gender differences don't exist that there is no difference the twin males and females. in a recent interview gloria steinem was asked about her thought on the latest research on male-female brains which there has been a lot lately in the last few years which has been great. both the female brain and male brain in the last few years,

excellent material to prove men and women are actually different which of course we know but now it is in print. her response to this, every time there is a step forward there is a backlash. now we are seeing another backlash about brain differences. even if they are right it doesn't have to continue to be so. what makes human beings and species that has survived all this time is our adaptability. when the interviewer pressed for a friend asked but archer inherent differences we cannot ignore? she replied society can certainly intervene at a cultural level to change that behavior. fortunately, just this past january two months ago. ville dr. kathryn hakeem published a report that highlights a dozen feminists myths, some

we already mentioned. shea but they have no basis in social science that are constantly believed and repeated. feminism is not what people think it is. it has nothing to do with equality for women and nothing to do with making women more independent, not at all. feminism is about power for the female left. it is an emotional issue. people feel strongly about feminism but those who are able to detach from their emotions and read "the flipside of feminism" with a genuinely open mind will see that what feminists want is no different from what president obama wants. to fundamentally transformed

america. thank you. [applause] >> we will be glad to take questions. there are microphones in the room we would ask you to wait for for recording purposes. if you would be so kind as to identify yourself and give an affiliation that would be appreciated too. i could not help but think during the litany of quotes of a famous reagan quote, our opponents are not necessarily ignorant, they just know so many things that aren't true. which takes a while to get around. do we have any questions from the floor? >> looking back at american history, when women gained the right to vote, do you believe feminists via daddy read differently than you do? >> is the mike on?

they claim credit for it and they don't deserve any credit for that. it is an entirely different movement to get women a positive benefit. i am for women voting and being active in politics but they claim they were there for mothers or something and there's no relation. those women were all pro-family and in particular anti-abortion. i don't know how the current feminists can trace any lineage to them. it is all another myth. >> if i could add to that, i think that issue makes conservative women movement so confusing when it comes to feminism. that is what causes problems because conservative women want to hold onto that label because they associated with the suffrage movement. what we do in front side is

delineate between the two movements. all of our discussion about feminism is from 1960s on and we explain why it should not be connected with the suffrage movement. it is that confusion that people think if they chuckle labels and you must think women shouldn't vote because the movement goes back to the nineteenth century. those two movements are not related. in a broad sense they might be getting a real sense they are not. >> you can't believe how many times i debated a feminist and she is crying out about the injustices was women didn't have the right to vote. i don't even know anybody who remembers that time. move on! get with it! >> another question. in the back. i am suspicious that it is only men asking questions. >> we told you. thing they can say.

>> peter sprayed with family research council. i want to ask about women in the military. i have seen a couple articles, one just this morning saying women who serve in the military have higher divorce rate than men who serve in the military. are there more single mothers serving in the military than fathers and a few weeks ago, an effort underway to expand the roles that women can take in the military with all forms of combat roles except for ground infantry which has been expanding overtime anyway. can you comment on what the feminist movement says? part of the reason for this i might add is women have more career opportunities to advance

to higher ranks. i just wondered if you could comment on the feminist movement and what it has meant for the role of women in the military. >> the feminists are complaining that there are not enough women generals and you get high rate when you face the enemy and fight for our country. i think it is very wrong when it's happening. i don't really have respect for women who send men out to do their fighting. women have an important place in the military. i have a lot of friends who served honorably in women's jobs in world war ii. as far as putting them in combat is ridiculous. they simply cannot do the physical work that men can do. there's no way they can and they make the men lie about it and say they are doing the same work if men don't lie about it, is a

career killer for them. it is very wrong about the feminists are pushing that and always have. at the very beginning of the fight on the equal rights amendment in 1972, their document, their platform was a 100 page article written by a famous professor who wrote in the yale law journal and he said between brutalizing men and brutalizing women there's little to choose. women should be in every combat job. that is weight -- what they have been for and feminists never denied it. >> another question? too read this and. >> now that this victim mentality is in place what is the best way for people and young women to overcome it and

how did you refrain from being a victim? >> it is difficult to stand up against this. no question about it. does seem as though everyone around you things one way. i have found right did find the best way is to surround yourself with people who are like-minded. that helps a great deal. have you ever spoken out and said the opposite of what they're telling you? you don't think women are victims? that is something to think about. if you just throw it out and put the question back on them it is interesting to hear how they respond as to why they think that. often times they have a good reason for it. they're simply passing on what someone else told them. what i do is tell people to ask them the question. asked why they think that. what are the example of that and

prove them wrong through getting them to see that they are wrong. i don't know if that helps. >> i don't think it is difficult at all. it is a lot of fun. they are so wrong. when betty friedan said she would like to bernie at the stake i said are you trying to make me into joan of arc? they are so wrong and put out so much nonsense i will not let those costs migrate. >> she is extra thick skin. >> i had to learn it though. >> my experience is the same as hairs from that angle. i got an e-mail that told me i

am worse than hitler. it takes you a back for a moment but eventually you realize, whose things like that? how can you mean what you are saying? when you realize the kind of mentality you are dealing with the worst thing it does is tell you how many people there are like that and that is really awful. that is the worst part. in the last few weeks alone the attacks on me specifically because of this boston university article. it was off the charts. crazy. because it really tells you when conservative talk about indoctrination on campus they are not kidding. it is not a joke and it is not paranoia. it is very real. all you have to do is go to the "the flipside of feminism" web site, click on the front page and read through the comments and maybe you won't be shocked. >> down here in front?

>> you need right into what i was thinking. has there been any inroad in academia than you envision in roads for your message? >> so the children can go to those schools? >> it is just starting. i am very cautiously optimistic about where it is going to head. i know i will be on an npr affiliate in response to this, boston radio calls and it is going to be a lion's den for sure because they will work to single me out as the enemy. i don't know. certainly phyhllis schafly has been more involved in terms of the college environment because she has given a lot of speeches. for me starting out on that area i don't know what is going to

happen. i am a concerned and when i stood up and buys see these young ladies, so wonderful because that is a group i am trying to reach. >> colleges have been infected in all departments. if you want to be safe take engineering but don't waste your education dollar on women's studies. they are absolutely the worst. it is just a lot of feminist lesbian propaganda. >> it goes back decades. my husband would get lower grades from feminist professors in the early 80s because he would argue with or take issue with what they were teaching him or he provided an alternative viewpoint. maybe it is not this way. he was penalized for that. the power is off the charts.

is just awful. >> one more down here. >> are was wondering what you both would say to men as a result of this feminist generation on both sides of the aisle. it seems men have become weakened by the feminist movement even if they do agree with the things advocated in your book. >> exactly. my hope is men will use this opportunity to have a door open and say i really think this isn't so great for either our marriage, society, like kids or what have you. it is going to be difficult because the women will the grooves. feminists don't want you to think they do but they do on the home front and all the research proves that. despite all the power we search for outside the home there is

tremendous power within the home if you are female. it is really about encouraging men to feel that they can argue with tour take issue with some of those issues within the feminist movement and not be taken as a chauvinist. you have to be married to or surrounded by women who encouraged that and think that way as well so that will depend on how much she speaks up. >> the first time speaking out has to come from women. the men can't do it. >> there's no question that it will come out of there of the same way it will from women. >> background? >> can you comment a little more on what the effects have been on men and when they will continue to be if the feminist movement

is the stock? >> say that again. >> comment a little on the effect of feminist movement has been an men and what they will continue to do if the feminist movement is stopped or halted? >> there was a fantastic in the last few weeks, a spread in the wall street journal about the book maning up. where have all the men gun? that is the right title. it was a focus on how men are now stuck in this pre pubescent quandary because the question is why? why this is, whar men not be coming men. why are they still boys? the answers feminism. feminism has not allowed them to be men. part of being planned growing gap is getting married and having a job.

since no one is getting married they don't support a family because they defeat men anyway. who is the man we talk about? george gilbert? we fought him several times at flip side. >> it is called men and marriage. >> he had a grasp on mail nature and female nature and how they work in tandem but what you need from women in water for men to be a certain way, now with feminism we are not promoting that any more. men are not growing. >> i would end the domination women have, feminists have in the education system starts in the elementary grades which are mostly run by women and now largely feminists because of the

power of the teachers' union. typical, not all, but your typical elementary school teacher looks upon unruly boys has just unruly girls and they need to be made to behave like girls and they need to sit still and do the work with a pen and pencil that girls can do very easily. and unfortunately a lot of new schools are being built without playgrounds and recess is being cancelled and a lot of schools. this is a direct attack on the boys who have to go out and run around and beat each other rep so they can come in and learn something. the feminists won't tolerate that because they have is insane ideas that boys and girls are the same and i already mentioned the problem of sports. they're trying to take sports away. colleges are 60/40 female/mail. the girls don't like it.

feminists have done it. >> we have a whole chapter in flip side called the emasculated -- the expendable mail. the whole chapters about men. it starts when they are schoolboys and goes through the stages of manhood and talks about precisely what has happened with men, boys and men as a result of feminism. >> we have one more question. >> i just wondered way back of the first question talking about the suffrage movement and how that contrasts with more modern feminism movement. would you attribute when they throw you can only get a college education because of those more likely several tests --

suffragists? >> they honestly believe because they were raised by a baby boomer mothers and parents and a culture that has taught them in no uncertain terms that feminism is what gave women opportunity and that opportunity includes college degrees and careers and without feminism world you see today would not exist. that is what they believe. what we are proving and flips side is there's another reason why the world is the way it is now. it would have happened exactly the way it does with without this movement. that is a great question. >> in my first book in 1964 before the feminist movement sold three million copies out of my garage. >> and so can you. >> we're having some enjoyment with this discussion. it is a very serious topic and we do recommend you get a copy of "the flipside of feminism" to

see where we are on this agenda. we want to thank our special guests at the 11 and phyhllis schafly for wonderful presentation. [applause] >> to find out more visit the book's web site "the flipside of feminism".com. >> the 2011 pulitzer prize winners have been announced. what three authors discuss their books. and we will discuss "the fiery trial," abraham lincoln and american slavery. eric foner contends president lincoln was against slavery early in his political career but adhered to the constitution in original southern states until the civil war. then run turnoff who won a pulitzer prize for his biography of george washington will present his book washington:a

life in which he describes the first president animal taken the -- multi dimensional character and covering it circumstances that led to his prominence in american history. finally, the 2011 pulitzer prize for general nonfiction for his book the emperor of all maladies:biography of cancer. he provides an in-depth look with earliest account of this disease. visit booktv.org and check out the news about books section of the page. >> up next, eric foner examined abraham lincoln's fought on slavery asserting that early in the president's political career he was anti slavery and adhere to the protection of the institution in the original slave states. he follows the career and rejection of slavery following the civil war. this was awarded the 2011

pulitzer prize in history. >> thank you for coming out here. now i know why they call chicago the windy city. i am happy to be at this institution, and i would be happy to take time to respond to questions. someone can't hear the like. i will be happy to answer questions after the talk is over. i don't need to tell you in illinois that abraham lincoln is the most iconic figure in american history. every political group from radicals to conservatives, segregationists to civil-rights advocates has tried to claim lincoln and their own. every protestant denomination as well as non the beavers has claimed they share lincoln's

religious views. lincoln nowadays if you watch television you will see him as a way of selling products. there is an ad for geico automobile insurance using lincoln or a facsimile thereof. there is even a rather well selling book out there right now about lincoln as a vampire hunter which is a side of his career i didn't quite get into my book. there is a lot of lincoln collectors. i have my own lincoln collection and brought a lot of things to show you. these are from supermarket tabloids. i don't read this stuff for my students. these are two articles from supermarket tabloids. you see this. i had a lincoln's baby.

see that? some kind of cloning experiment. i don't know. even more surrealistic, the weekly world news. can you read this? abraham lincoln's corp's revived. he is kept alive for 95 seconds. the student who passed this along wrote on here why didn't they have the sense to ask him what his plans for reconstruction work? in 1876 the great black abolitionist frederick douglass delivered a celebrated speech in washington and the unveiling of the friedman's monument. a statue that is still there showing abraham lincoln conferring freedom on a slave kneeling before him. it is an often quoted speech in which douglas talks in interesting ways about lincoln's

use of race and slavery and the emancipation. along the way douglas said the man can say anything that is new of abraham lincoln. but it has not stopped innumerable lawyers and political theorists and literary critics, psychiatrist and many others from trying to say something new about abraham lincoln. in the past few years thanks to the bicentennial of lincoln's birth there has been another outpouring of works of every size and description many offering of valuable new insights into lincoln's career. i am frequently asked why are you writing a book about lincoln? what is there to say any more? is there anything new to say?

i feel that the dramatic expansion of scholarship on lincoln has often gone hand in hand with a kind of narrowing of focus. is so preferential quality. not every single book but they act as if all you need to know about lincoln is lincoln. to understand why he developed some policy as president you look at his law career. you understand his policies about slavery you look at his early belief in natural law. in other words he is suffering sure -- reference when the larger water world tends to slip out of view. my book tries to counteract this by trying to place lincoln firmly in his historical context. it focuses on lincoln and

slavery. relationship with slavery, policies and attitudes toward slavery and the role of african-american people in american life over the course of his career. i want to situate lincoln in the broad spectrum of what charles sumner called the anti slavery enterprise, in broad social movement which contains many people within that. some of them radical abolitionists who demanded the immediate abolition of slavery and incorporating black people as equals citizens of the united states. others much more conservative who thought about a very gradual ending for slavery and in the phrase of the time colonizing black people, encouraging them to leave the country once free for africa or haiti or central america. at one point at lincoln occupied

different positions in that broad anti slavery enterprise. the first thing to bear in mind about lincoln is the hallmark of his greatness was his capacity for growth and change. it is fruitless even though people try to do it to take a single quotation. a single moment and say here is the quintessential lincoln. a single speech or letter. at the time of his death lincoln occupied a very different place with regard to various issues then he did earlier in his career. i am particularly interested in lincoln's relationship with abolitionists and radical republicans, people in the republican party who had that abolitionist sensibility. lincoln was not an abolitionist. he never claimed to be an abolitionist. they are often criticized him strongly and he had some unflattering remarks to say about them. it is important that lincoln saw

himself as part of a broad anti slavery movement of which abolitionists were also a part. even blow it was a small movement he was aware of their impact on public opinion. they had letters, pamphlets, lectors, arousing no. sentiment to confront the moral dilemma of slavery. in 1858 lincoln said every schoolboy recognizes the names of wilberforce and sharp, leaders of the british movement in the 1790s to abolish the slave trade from africa. every schoolboy knows the names of wilberforce and sharp but who today can name one man who opposed them? lincoln saw history moving