When I first saw this book's subtitle, “John C. Frémont, Abraham Lincoln, and the Battle for Emancipation,” I worried about whether this was going to be another revisionist effort to praise Frémont as the true Great Emancipator and castigate Lincoln for only reluctantly and belatedly following Frémont’s lead.

Thankfully, that was not the case. This turned out to be a thoughtful, fair, nuanced, nonjudgmental and very readable account of the pair’s complicated relationship, how their approaches to emancipation differed, and why only one of those efforts ultimately succeeded.

At the start of the Civil War, emancipation was a radical idea of questionable legality, efficacy and popularity. And any radical can push an idea. But it takes an effective political leader to turn that idea into a policy that can be defended, enforced and supported by the populace.

So it was easy for Frémont and his abolitionist allies to embrace the idea of emancipation early on, since they weren’t the ones who had to worry about whether it was constitutional or might have a negative impact on wavering Union supporters so early in the war. Lincoln, in contrast, “approached problems in a methodical, lawyerly fashion,” Bicknell writes in his introduction. “Lincoln was practical, Frémont a romantic. Lincoln was a talented politician. Frémont was not.”

Roughly the first third of the book establishes Frémont’s background, as exploratory expedition leader, national hero and 1856 presidential candidate. While Lincoln supported Frémont then, he was somewhat less supportive when he himself became president and had to decide what to do with Frémont that would appear suitable for a man of his reputation and stature - a Cabinet position? An ambassadorship? Commanding General of the U.S. Army?

Instead, Frémont is sent to Missouri to head up the Department of the West. And within a month of getting there, his proclamation of martial law - which also freed the slaves of anyone who rebelled against the government - immediately set up a showdown with the more cautious and methodical Lincoln.

A stubborn Frémont had an “inflated sense of his own destiny” and a “natural disposition to defy authority,” Bicknell writes. Instead of acceding to Lincoln’s request to rescind his emancipation order, Frémont determined that “if Lincoln wanted the emancipation order overturned, he would have to do it himself,” which he then did.

A good portion of the book, then, is devoted to exploring why Lincoln opposed Frémont’s emancipation order, especially considering he ended up issuing his own just about a year later. In retrospect, it seems that emancipation had already become inevitable very early in the war, as slaves began to self-emancipate and Gen. Benjamin Butler established a precedent by refusing to send them back. While Lincoln and others wrestled over the legality, effectiveness and popular support for emancipation, “events were running ahead of the politicians and would continue to do so,” Bicknell observes. Lincoln and prominent Missouri political ally Frank Blair “saw Missouri as a key test case for their ideas about gradual emancipation," but worried that "Frémont was interposing himself and mucking up the works.”

His emancipation order aside, Frémont was ultimately dismissed for disorganization and ineffectiveness. But increasingly vocal support for his emancipation measure showed that “the war was changing in ways Lincoln couldn't control.” While Lincoln was always anti-slavery and sought other ways to eradicate it, like compensated emancipation and colonization of freed slaves overseas, public support for Frémont only grew, and Congress passed the Confiscation Acts, which ultimately gave Lincoln the foundation to be able to issue an Emancipation Proclamation of his own.

So in Bicknell’s estimation, it’s not as simple as saying that Frémont was ultimately right and Lincoln was proven wrong. Frémont was more impulsive and improvisational with his order, while Lincoln had to weigh all the consequences before he could determine that emancipation was indeed the best course. Frémont claimed vindication, but it was Lincoln himself who observed that “the pioneer in any movement is not generally the best man to carry that movement to a successful issue.”

By the time Frémont became a potential presidential challenger to Lincoln in 1864, as “a symbol of the radicals’ desire for Lincoln to move with greater purpose against slavery,” Lincoln’s embrace of emancipation largely made this moot, and enthusiasm for a Frémont candidacy faded away. And shortly afterward, Lincoln’s assassination only elevated his reputation. In the minds of many, Bicknell writes, “Lincoln was now a martyr. Frémont was just a failed general.”

The book is strongest when it compares and contrasts Lincoln and Frémont, and focuses on their differing approaches to emancipation. There are times when it’s necessary to provide more biographical information about Frémont - when he’s busy defending his generalship and his reputation, for example, Lincoln and emancipation fade from the picture and my interest tended to wane in direct proportion. But those moments were few and far between.

Conventional wisdom gives Lincoln all the credit for “freeing the slaves,” while some more modern interpretations chide Lincoln and accuse him of being a reluctant emancipator. Neither is really true, so Bicknell’s book provides a welcome fresh look, with a thought-provoking explanation of what happened and why, without pointing fingers. “We'll never know whether launching a more aggressive war sooner, including an earlier deployment of military emancipation” would have been more effective, Bicknell writes. But in the final analysis, “Lincoln's cautious approach to emancipation and his similar approach to the border states worked,” as the war was won and the Union was restored.

No one person did it alone, though. The Pathfinder and the President may have had a contentious and adversarial relationship, their motives and methods differed drastically, and their historical reputations are decidedly different, but each deserves some measure of credit. And Bicknell shows just how much their stories are intertwined - if you choose to read of only one man’s path to embracing emancipation instead of reading this book, then you’re only getting half the story.