Book Review: Eric Foner's The Fiery Trial

Excellent book. Foner traces the evolution of Abraham Lincoln's views regarding slavery, emancipation, black suffrage, colonization (meaning, the opinion during his day that blacks should be relocated out of the country), and the civil and social equality of the negro.

Several things stand out about this book. Foner unveils the gross and malicious racism of not only the southern states, but even the northern states. The Republicans were distinctly uncomfortable with the contradiction between the high ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the actual experience of the black population, but many were willing to live with that contradiction. The Democrats were fighting to preserve that contradiction, in many cases arguing that the blacks were either subhuman or too inferior to handle freedom (the growing popularity of Darwinism was used to buttress their argument, by the way).

Foner teases out the factions (radical abolitionists, conservative Republicans, moderate Democrats, Unionists, etc) with great skill and copious documentation. He also makes clear the complexity and tension of the competing priorities of ending slavery while preserving the Union, keeping the border states from seceding, all the while defending the Constitution. Reading Foner provides a much clearer picture of the difficulties the country faced than does the modern progressive evaluation of American slavery.

Once the gross sin of slavery was introduced into the colonies, the die was cast for a bloody reckoning in the future, a reckoning that the Declaration would exacerbate--because that document demonstrated that men knew what was right even if they chose not to do it.

Reading Foner's The Fiery Trial is a worthwhile education as to the morals and mood of mid nineteenth century America. Not only does it display the dark, sinful underbelly of our history, it also demonstrates that within the seeds of the American experiment were the tools of correction, the ability to right a gross injustice.

Five stars--well worth the read.

Book Review: A Blaze of Glory, by Jeff Shaara

Shaara’s account of the battle of Shiloh in the form of a historical novel does a great service by bringing to attention a battle the import and impact of which has been largely lost in the mists of history. The fields of slaughter produced by that conflict (24,000 casualties out of 100,000 combatants) are among the most horrific of the Civil War.

Shaara continues with his style of tracing the movement of the battle through the eyes of a select set of characters on both sides, most historical, some fictional. His research, as always, is impeccable.

On the negative side, there was too much climbing inside the thoughts of the characters, causing me as a reader to lose the thread of the tale. And the book could have used double the number of maps. In Shaara’s defense, the confusion I experienced trying to stay atop the action might have had something to do with the confusing reality of the battle itself. The generals running the show appeared to have the same confusion that I did reading the story  so long after the fact.

This one I would not characterize as a page-turner, but definitely a worthwhile and enjoyable read. Three and a half stars.

Book Review: Allegiance: Fort Sumpter, Charleston, and the beginning of the Civil War, by David Detzer

This is a good book. I started it wondering whether or not a 320 page book about one tiny battle would be able to hold my attention. It did. Detzer's writing is excellent, highly readable, and free from academic jargon. His research on the topic is exhaustive: he knows what he is talking about.

Detzer provides a fine snapshot of antebellum Charleston, its commerce and society, its colorful characters and politicians, and its slaves. He does a good job of pointing out the sad ironies of slavery amidst a free people: he's not preachy but at times very cutting.

Detzer sugar-coats no one, although he comes close in his portrayal of Major Robert Anderson, who is presented as a man of high character and leadership skills, who is blessed with equal but contradictory doses of pacifism and duty to country.

The final chapter was outstanding, and presented a very sensitive and appropriate retrospective on the later lives of some of the major characters as well as Charleston and Fort Sumpter.

It's an excellent book. There are a few weaknesses, all relatively minor. Dezter is a professional historian, but he gets pretty snarky in places. I'm still trying to decide whether it's endearing or irritating. He does a good bit of editorializing, as well. Usually in just a sentence, never more than a paragraph or two at a time, but liberally sprinkled through the book.

One example is his almost-gratuitous passage on the meaning of the flag, on pages 127-128, claiming that there is no true meaning of a flag. In fine postmodern fashion, Detzer intimates that the flag means whatever its wielder wishes it to mean. He then goes on to complete the book demonstrating (unconsciously, perhaps?) that it stands for the sovereignty of the nation whose emblem it bears. There seems to be no confusion about the meaning of the flag for either the soldiers in Sumpter or the civilians in Charleston--and they both seem to ascribe to it the same significance.

Another weakness in his writing is his tendency to skip around in chronology from one paragraph to the next without giving the reader due warning. I found on repeated occasions, well into the paragraph, that the matter being expounded happened before the matter in previous paragraph. I'm no fan of slavish chronology, but I would appreciate a warning when the time of the scene shifts backwards, otherwise it can be (and was) a little confusing.

All these petty gripes are minor in view of the excellence of the account Detzer has created. I recommend the book to anyone who has an interest in Civil War era history.

Book Review: Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam

Stephen W. Sears, Landscape Turned Red. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co.  (Mariner Books, 2003 edition).

This volume ranks among the best works of military history that I have read. Sears is a top-drawer writer and historian, and this book displays both those skills. It’s one of the few histories I’ve read that could be legitimately described as a page-turner.

Sears does a great job of unfolding the context for the Battle of Antietam—of 336 pages in the main body of the book, fully 180 are devoted to establishing the background. Much of that material is spent elaborating General George B. McClellan’s personal history and conduct up to the collision between the armies on September 17, 1862. I didn’t come away feeling that any of the detail was unnecessary. In many respects the book is an examination of McClellan, and Sears is not among his fans.

Those looking to redeem the general from history’s opprobrium will need to look elsewhere. By the extensive use of original documents, Sears has documented the man’s failings as a combat commander, although he balanced his critique with a fair assessment of McCellan’s strong record of organizing and training the Army of the Potomac.

The threads of political intrigue that were whirling about Washington are well represented, as is the dithering of the Great Powers as they grappled whether or not to support the Rebellion.

From the first bullets of the skirmishers to the slow withdrawal from the battlefield, Sears is able to narrate the action in such a clear way I was able to follow it without difficulty. The biggest problem was keeping track of which commanders were attached to what unit, as the officers were mowed down so rapidly even regiment and brigade commanders were quickly used up. The maps Sears has included are excellent; you might want to mark the maps with post-notes to enable you to find them easily.

This book will be a treat for those who enjoy military history, especially as regards the Civil War. I recommend it highly.