I'm Alan Alda and this is clear and vivid conversations about connecting and communicating. There was a big soup of opinion and Lincoln's task as a politician on the way into the Civil War when he was a rising politician was to try to reach

into that soup of opinions and find, build a majority of people who would actively oppose slavery in some way. It was a real challenge and it required

him to make coalitions with people who weren't exactly on the same page as him about slavery,

who thought that he was behind the times, or he thought they were behind the times.

And so as a politician, he had to figure out how do I how do I appeal to them how do I pull them

over to my side and not trip myself up because nine-tenths of the time I think

they're wrong that's Steve Innskeep. He's best known as host of NPR's Morning Edition.

He's also an avid student of 19th century American history. His new book, Differ We Must, takes a fresh look at Abraham Lincoln's life

by recounting 16 face-to-face encounters that Lincoln had with people who differed with him, sometimes vehemently.

The book not only reveals Lincoln's skills as a master politician in a deeply divisive time,

but it also has lessons for today.

This is going to be fun to talk to you about your book,

Differ, we must, because it's about two times in our history,

then and now.

Thank you, I agree.

And it's about Lincoln's deliberate strategic way

of dealing with those who differed with him.

Are they equivalent states then and now? Was there as much hate then as there is now?

Oh my goodness. How would you measure it? It's funny that word hate because nobody really ever accepts that that's what they're doing.

They will persuade themselves that whatever system they're in is the just and the right one. That was true of slave owners even in the 19th century and it's certainly true of a lot of people today.

Were we as divided if we were to put it that way as divided then as we are now?

I mean probably more so then.

...