A Critique of "Lincoln's Constitution" and the Importance of Historical Narrative

Daniel Farber's book "Lincoln's Constitution" is a book that deals with Lincoln's response to the Civil War and the Constitutional powers he used. Farber makes good use of sources in his book, while also formulating a clear opinion on Lincoln's use of Constitutional powers during the Civil War. Farber’s opinion is that Lincoln was largely justified in his use of wartime powers and that his actions kept the Union together.

One glaring fault of Farber’s book is his failure to incorporate historical narrative into it. Historical narrative is a way to make historical writing more interesting by trying to tell a story using historical facts. Farber’s writing comes off mostly as stiff and impersonal, making no effort at all to entertain the audience. If Farber’s goal was to write a well-researched take on Lincoln and the Constitution he succeeded. But if Farber’s goal was to entertain an audience he failed. If Farber wrote using the methods of historical narrative he could have reached a much larger audience that would be able to absorb his opinions on Lincoln. As it stands, “Lincoln’s Constitution” is a book that would make an excellent source for a paper, but is woefully lacking the entertainment value of say a Jon Meacham. That is someone who can get his or her point across to a larger audience while being entertaining at the same time.