Scan barcode
A review by daco70
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson
5.0
I have been an avid reader of history ever since I was a child, especially military history, and oddly the American Civil War has always been largely neglected, something I've recently tried to correct. In the interest of doing so, I decided to read James M. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. This book came out three decades ago and I have seen it described as the best single-volume history of the Civil War. I haven't read enough about the conflict to make that judgment. But I have read enough history to make this one: this is one of the single best history books I have ever read.
This is a meaty book, checking in at over 800 pages despite not going into great detail about the individual battles (there are certainly enough books that do that). The size is a testament to the complexity of not only the war itself but especially the myriad issues and controversies that led up to secession. McPherson's writing is highly readable but covers well the events over the preceding three decades that resulted in our country's bloodiest conflict.
One thing is clear from the history and that is the ultimate cause of the Civil War. I grew up in North Carolina, what was referred to as the "upper South." I don't recall hearing that much about the war, either in school or otherwise, but what I did hear was cloaked in a lot of mythology. I've heard a fair amount of discussion over the years that would reflect the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy," "States' Rights," or the "War of Northern Aggression." I can understand the desire to ennoble one's ancestors who fought for a cause they believed in, but the historical record makes it quite clear that the war happened because of secession and secession happened because of the institution of slavery. Every conflict in the 30 or so years prior to 1860 that directly led to Fort Sumter centered around slavery, never outright abolition (beyond radicals like John Brown) but either the extension of slavery to new states or the restriction thereof, as well as questions about how private property (ie, slaves) would be handled outside the South, either for slaveholders traveling to new territories or states with their property in hand, or for slaveholders seeking their wayward property in the North (fugitive slaves). The aggrieved southerners may have felt that their rights were not being respected, but those rights they were striving to preserve invariably came down to slavery. To quote from the book:
"The Nashville Patriot of April 24, 1861, was conscious of no irony when it cited the “community of interest existing in all the slaveholding States” as the reason why these states must unite to defend “justice and liberty.” The upper South, like the lower, went to war to defend the freedom of white men to own slaves and to take them into the territories as they saw fit, lest these white men be enslaved by Black Republicans who threatened to deprive them of these liberties."
No, the North did not go to war for the abolition of slavery, but rather for preservation of the Union. Even in the North, the naked racism exhibited throughout the war by Lincoln's opposition, whether in newspaper editorials or campaign slogans, is appalling in retrospect. Even Lincoln himself was largely agnostic on the need for emancipation at the outset of the conflict. However, as the war progressed, it became clear to most that preservation of the Union was not possible without abolition of slavery, whether from a practical viewpoint or a moral one.
In an era when controversies over memorials to Confederate veterans have flared anew and white supremacy has seen a greater public presence than it has in quite a while, it is important to clearly understand the etiology of the war. Confederate veterans can be lauded for their bravery under fire and dedication to their cause. But one shouldn't mistake or misrepresent the nature of that cause. McPherson's book does a superb job of covering these issues. The book won a Pulitzer Prize; it hardly needs my endorsement. But if one wants the big picture view of the most deadly war in American history, this is a fantastic place to start.
This is a meaty book, checking in at over 800 pages despite not going into great detail about the individual battles (there are certainly enough books that do that). The size is a testament to the complexity of not only the war itself but especially the myriad issues and controversies that led up to secession. McPherson's writing is highly readable but covers well the events over the preceding three decades that resulted in our country's bloodiest conflict.
One thing is clear from the history and that is the ultimate cause of the Civil War. I grew up in North Carolina, what was referred to as the "upper South." I don't recall hearing that much about the war, either in school or otherwise, but what I did hear was cloaked in a lot of mythology. I've heard a fair amount of discussion over the years that would reflect the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy," "States' Rights," or the "War of Northern Aggression." I can understand the desire to ennoble one's ancestors who fought for a cause they believed in, but the historical record makes it quite clear that the war happened because of secession and secession happened because of the institution of slavery. Every conflict in the 30 or so years prior to 1860 that directly led to Fort Sumter centered around slavery, never outright abolition (beyond radicals like John Brown) but either the extension of slavery to new states or the restriction thereof, as well as questions about how private property (ie, slaves) would be handled outside the South, either for slaveholders traveling to new territories or states with their property in hand, or for slaveholders seeking their wayward property in the North (fugitive slaves). The aggrieved southerners may have felt that their rights were not being respected, but those rights they were striving to preserve invariably came down to slavery. To quote from the book:
"The Nashville Patriot of April 24, 1861, was conscious of no irony when it cited the “community of interest existing in all the slaveholding States” as the reason why these states must unite to defend “justice and liberty.” The upper South, like the lower, went to war to defend the freedom of white men to own slaves and to take them into the territories as they saw fit, lest these white men be enslaved by Black Republicans who threatened to deprive them of these liberties."
No, the North did not go to war for the abolition of slavery, but rather for preservation of the Union. Even in the North, the naked racism exhibited throughout the war by Lincoln's opposition, whether in newspaper editorials or campaign slogans, is appalling in retrospect. Even Lincoln himself was largely agnostic on the need for emancipation at the outset of the conflict. However, as the war progressed, it became clear to most that preservation of the Union was not possible without abolition of slavery, whether from a practical viewpoint or a moral one.
In an era when controversies over memorials to Confederate veterans have flared anew and white supremacy has seen a greater public presence than it has in quite a while, it is important to clearly understand the etiology of the war. Confederate veterans can be lauded for their bravery under fire and dedication to their cause. But one shouldn't mistake or misrepresent the nature of that cause. McPherson's book does a superb job of covering these issues. The book won a Pulitzer Prize; it hardly needs my endorsement. But if one wants the big picture view of the most deadly war in American history, this is a fantastic place to start.