The Civil War and the Limits of Destruction

Alright, if you haven't been on this blog before I will come out and say it. I am a Unionist through and through and feel that too much blame is thrown on the feet of the yanks and not enough of the blame taken by the rebs for their own actions. And I was looking forward to a read that finally tries to prove the Federals were not a bloodthirsty and lawless as described.

(Force Mind Trick) But....this is not the book you're looking for. And I will give a few thoughts on why I disagree.

This book's defense is based on three premises: The two sides weren't willing to take off the gloves because of the fact they were fighting whites as well. The discipline level was higher. And the later Union troops were more focused on proving themselves the equals to the Confederates.

1. Being the same race stayed their hands: This statement is not as accurate as he paints for the reader. Sure, during the beginning they tried to be less brutal. But, you read of Confederate troops right after First Manasass digging up a Union soldiers body to mutilate it. You read of Union troops after killing General Zollicoffer during the early part of the war and tearing out hairs of his beard for souvenirs. Lee's second invasion of the north saw Confederates look away as many Confederates all but robbed the northerners, Lee even going as far as saying to a woman complaining that everything has been taken, "Now you know something of what the people of Virginia have endured."

2. The Discipline was higher: Yes, it was, but discipline has a way of breaking down when soldiers capture cities. Fredericksburg being one example, even if the officers tried to stop their men from looting. One case sticks out quiet well in my mind. There's a story of the Overland Campaign where a Union officer told his soldiers he don't want to see them pulling apart fences, then turned around and looked away until his soldiers had dismantled an entire fence. And both sides officially authorized bushwhacking units.

3. Glory more important than revenge: There is a story of during the Georgia Campaign where Sherman's men captured a mill where 400 women were working. He kidnapped them and sent them north. Even despite the quicking an end to the war aim to do the Overland Campaign and March to the Sea and all the other maneuvers in the late part of the war was specifically meant to give the troops a chance to enact revenge against the South for their taking up arms. And meanwhile, as I pointed out, Confederate officers while they tried to limit the destruction caused by their troops in Pennsylvania, would look away at acts of revenge as long as they didn't get out of hand. You even hear of Stuart's cavalry shelling Chambersburg until they pay a ransom to be spared.

In short, this is really a book bent on not so much changing how people look at the war as to diverting their focus away from the war and looking at what other people did. It's the same as a kid who get's caught in trouble and says: "But everyone is doing it, and that kid is so much worse than I am."

What Hath God Wrought

To understand the times that transform the United States to the belemoth that broke up during the Civil War, one must understand the times preceding the war. One of the books that most clearly describes such events is What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 by Daniel Walker Howe.

It begins how it ends, on the field of battle. It starts with the British disaster at New Orleans, due to the communication downfall of the time; and ends at a new type of battle, the Sceneca Falls assembly where women began advocating equal rights and abolitsinism. Though the battles were diffrent, it is fair to point out that in both battles, the black man was a part of the issue. ANd both showed the way people viewed them back then. At New Orleans: Jackson offered the black troops 150 acres of land for thier services, but convinently forgot about it and the men were still trying to fight for thier lands. At Seneca Falls: women wants blacks free, but that did not nessecarily mean equal rights.

Howe's books helps show how the country transformed into what it became, allowing it to survive during the Civil War. It also allows us to see what kind of land Grant, Lee, Jackson and Sherman lived in and grew up. This book describes the country of Mexico as a people that were eager to show thier independance from Spanish rule, and determined to hold on thier lands from American interlopers.

In short, this book is an excellant addition to any History buffs library. I wouldn't recommend this book to someone who is wanting a light read or still new to the history profession. Why? 900 pages, 10 size font, and long words. But, for the hard core prosn, or someone who really wants a good read, I highly recommend it.

I rate this book 10 out of 10.

Dear America Diaries

There are several Dear America Diaries that deal with the American Civil War. They're fun to read, but entirely fictional. Most of the writers make up the people of the journals from real experiances people experianced.

Probably the best part of the books if you want info is at the very end. There, they include about a dozen pages of information about the war.

I would recommend this book to people who want to have something to read, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone who really wants to learn about the war.

My rating: 7 out of 10.

Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era

The Civil War was not just a conflict of bloodshed. During this time, it pitted technology against raw courage, and showed the true measure of men under pressure. It showed the cruelness of the land of equality, and saw fighting of more bloodshed on the North American contenient then any other conflict.

It is the most contrevorsial war of history. Millions are pitted against each other on which side was right, and which side was wrong. Millions believe that the South had fought a rightous crusade against the evil North, while millions vow that it was the North that fought the holy crusade to rid slavery and make the land of the free a fact, and not just a name.

Battle Cry of Freedom goes up to the challenge of trying to bring a true history of the war. Not a tainted view of the war, which has bias, but fits side by side with The Civil War by Shelby Foote, who is probably the greatest historian of the war to live. The book brings the Civil War to balance by trying to show both sides in thier true light; which is to say that neither one was bad, or wrong, they just had opposing views.

Who is the author to this book? Proffesor James M. McPherson. Years of dedication to this war is vividly shown in this book he has written. Intresting to note is the fact that he had no intrest in history until the Civil Rights Movements, which caught him in the grip which can be aptly described as: Civil War Fever.

This book does not just stick to the normal facts. It brings much more, and for being single book on the war, the 900 pages shows us not just the normal view, but what is not so commonly known.

One intresting fact the book brings to light: More westerners died then easterners to diesase because of most of them never having been exposed to city dieases' which were prevaliant in camps. But, more easterners died in combat then westerners.

But, I do not advise this book to someone who knows nothing about the war. The book is long, and the print is small. I would suggest something a little less detailed for beginners.

My rating of this book: 10 out of 10.

Civil War Books

Our next subject will be Civil War books. I will be reviewing several books during the next few posts.