What do you think?
Rate this book
The Union War
Even one hundred and fifty years later, we are haunted by the Civil War—by its division, its bloodshed, and perhaps, above all, by its origins. Today, many believe that the war was fought over slavery. This answer satisfies our contemporary sense of justice, but as Gary Gallagher shows in this brilliant revisionist history, it is an anachronistic judgment. In a searing analysis of the Civil War North as revealed in contemporary letters, diaries, and documents, Gallagher demonstrates that what motivated the North to go to war and persist in an increasingly bloody effort was primarily preservation of the Union. Devotion to the Union bonded nineteenth-century Americans in the North and West against a slaveholding aristocracy in the South and a Europe that seemed destined for oligarchy. Northerners believed they were fighting to save the republic, and with it the world’s best hope for democracy. Once we understand the centrality of union, we can in turn appreciate the force that made northern victory the citizen-soldier. Gallagher reveals how the massive volunteer army of the North fought to confirm American exceptionalism by salvaging the Union. Contemporary concerns have distorted the reality of nineteenth-century Americans, who embraced emancipation primarily to punish secessionists and remove slavery as a future threat to union—goals that emerged in the process of war. As Gallagher recovers why and how the Civil War was fought, we gain a more honest understanding of why and how it was won.
215 pages, Hardcover
First published April 25, 2011
12 people are currently reading
279 people want to read
About the author
Gary W. Gallagher
107 books98 followersGary W. Gallagher, the John L. Nau III Professor of History at the University of Virginia, is the author or editor of many books in the field of Civil War history, including The Confederate War; Causes Won, Lost, and Forgotten: How Hollywood and Popular Art Shape What We Know about the Civil War; and The Union War.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
October 3, 2023
Union And Emancipation
With the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, there has been an increase in both scholarly and popular interest in this seminal event of American history. Among the best of the recent studies of the conflict is "The Union War", a short, provocative examination of the reasons that led the United States to fight this long, costly, and bloody war rather than, say, accept secession. The author, Gary Gallagher, is a widely respected Civil War scholar who is John Nau III Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His many other books include a companion volume called "The Confederate War."
Beginning in the 1960s, students of the Civil War have focused on Emancipation --- freeing the slaves -- as the dominant goal and accomplishment of the Civil War. In his carefully nuanced study, Gallagher argues that this conclusion demands substantial modification and clarification. It is important to consider Emancipation from the perspectives of North and South. Gallagher admits, together with most modern scholarship, that the South seceeded and went to war to protect its "peculiar institution" of slavery. With this granted at the outset, Gallagher examines the reasons the North fought the secessionists. His basic answer is "Union". The United States fought to hold the country together and not primarily to end slavery. If the conflict had ended in the spring of 1862, as it might have with Grant's victories in the West and McClellan at the gates of Richmond, it is doubtful that Emancipation would have been a condition of the Confederacy's surrender.
Much of Gallagher's book is devoted to explaining why people at the time deemed Union worth fighting and dying for and what they understood by Union. Lincoln famously referred to the Union as the "last best hope on earth." For all the nation's flaws and inequalities especially in 21st Century eyes, Americans in the 1860's saw the Union as a land of personal liberty and economic opportunity with a broad grant of the franchise. They perceived the South as an oligarchy or an aristocracy which would destroy American government and reject the result of an open and fair election in order to hold their slave property. At the same time, European governments were undergoing periods of repression with the failure of the revolutions of 1848. Americans saw Union as freedom and democracy and worth fighting for to protect. A rallying cry that Gallagher emphsizes is Daniel Webster's famous Senate speech of January 27, 1830, in which he called for "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable."
In Gallagher's account, as the War progressed and became ever more violent, Emancipation became a secondary goal as an outgrowth of Union. Gallagher argues that Americans came to realize that the conflict could not be resolved without Emancipation. If peace had been made on the basis of "The Union as it was" (i.e. with slavery) the cause that led to the War in the first instance would remain to led to conflict again. The United States came to see Emancipation is necessary to secure Union and freedom and to defeat aristocracy. The issue seems to me one of nuance and phrasing. Gallagher is correct about the importance of Union. The point, however, is that Union and Emancipation are not in opposition. As Gallagher seems to recognize Union and Emancipation came to be seen together, and properly so.
Besides Union and Emancipation, Gallagher focuses on a third large element of the Union war: the Union Army. Gallagher again emphasizes matters that tend to be slighted by some modern historians. Civil War writing tends to be divided between military history -- the study of battles and campaigns -- on one hand and social, political, and economic history on the other hand. There is a tendency in some to look down on books of military history as written for alleged Civil War "buffs" or "warriors". Gallagher argues that there was a great degree of contingency in the Civil War and that key events, which might have gone differently, were decided on the battlefields. Therefore, Gallagher wants to emphasize the role of the Union Army and the citizen-soldiers who comprised it. Americans in combat did in fact give selflessly of themselves and of their lives to protect Union as they understood it, to serve the cause of freedom, and to allow the gradual growth of Emancipation and equality. Gallagher thus is eloquent in praise of the Union troops.
Gallagher develops his themes in chapters analyzing the frequently misunderstood Grand Review that took place in Washington, D.C. at the conclusion of the War, the nature of Union, its relationship to Emancipation, and the Union armies. A final chapter called "Affirmation" takes issue with another frequently voiced claim -- that after the War the North and South reconciled and forgot about Emancipation and about the sources of the conflict. Gallagher examines some or the literature relied upon to support this position. He argues that reconciliationist tendencies did not involve a retreat from the principles of Union and freedom for which the United States fought the Civil War.
Historians study the Civil War to help Americans understand themselves. In addition to Emancipation which is the focus of many prior studies, Gallagher's study emphasizes fully consistent and important goals -- the need for national unity, a shared sense of national purpose, and respect for the military and for sacrifice -- as lessons that can be drawn from the Civil War to help Americans understand our own difficult times.
Robin Friedman
With the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, there has been an increase in both scholarly and popular interest in this seminal event of American history. Among the best of the recent studies of the conflict is "The Union War", a short, provocative examination of the reasons that led the United States to fight this long, costly, and bloody war rather than, say, accept secession. The author, Gary Gallagher, is a widely respected Civil War scholar who is John Nau III Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His many other books include a companion volume called "The Confederate War."
Beginning in the 1960s, students of the Civil War have focused on Emancipation --- freeing the slaves -- as the dominant goal and accomplishment of the Civil War. In his carefully nuanced study, Gallagher argues that this conclusion demands substantial modification and clarification. It is important to consider Emancipation from the perspectives of North and South. Gallagher admits, together with most modern scholarship, that the South seceeded and went to war to protect its "peculiar institution" of slavery. With this granted at the outset, Gallagher examines the reasons the North fought the secessionists. His basic answer is "Union". The United States fought to hold the country together and not primarily to end slavery. If the conflict had ended in the spring of 1862, as it might have with Grant's victories in the West and McClellan at the gates of Richmond, it is doubtful that Emancipation would have been a condition of the Confederacy's surrender.
Much of Gallagher's book is devoted to explaining why people at the time deemed Union worth fighting and dying for and what they understood by Union. Lincoln famously referred to the Union as the "last best hope on earth." For all the nation's flaws and inequalities especially in 21st Century eyes, Americans in the 1860's saw the Union as a land of personal liberty and economic opportunity with a broad grant of the franchise. They perceived the South as an oligarchy or an aristocracy which would destroy American government and reject the result of an open and fair election in order to hold their slave property. At the same time, European governments were undergoing periods of repression with the failure of the revolutions of 1848. Americans saw Union as freedom and democracy and worth fighting for to protect. A rallying cry that Gallagher emphsizes is Daniel Webster's famous Senate speech of January 27, 1830, in which he called for "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable."
In Gallagher's account, as the War progressed and became ever more violent, Emancipation became a secondary goal as an outgrowth of Union. Gallagher argues that Americans came to realize that the conflict could not be resolved without Emancipation. If peace had been made on the basis of "The Union as it was" (i.e. with slavery) the cause that led to the War in the first instance would remain to led to conflict again. The United States came to see Emancipation is necessary to secure Union and freedom and to defeat aristocracy. The issue seems to me one of nuance and phrasing. Gallagher is correct about the importance of Union. The point, however, is that Union and Emancipation are not in opposition. As Gallagher seems to recognize Union and Emancipation came to be seen together, and properly so.
Besides Union and Emancipation, Gallagher focuses on a third large element of the Union war: the Union Army. Gallagher again emphasizes matters that tend to be slighted by some modern historians. Civil War writing tends to be divided between military history -- the study of battles and campaigns -- on one hand and social, political, and economic history on the other hand. There is a tendency in some to look down on books of military history as written for alleged Civil War "buffs" or "warriors". Gallagher argues that there was a great degree of contingency in the Civil War and that key events, which might have gone differently, were decided on the battlefields. Therefore, Gallagher wants to emphasize the role of the Union Army and the citizen-soldiers who comprised it. Americans in combat did in fact give selflessly of themselves and of their lives to protect Union as they understood it, to serve the cause of freedom, and to allow the gradual growth of Emancipation and equality. Gallagher thus is eloquent in praise of the Union troops.
Gallagher develops his themes in chapters analyzing the frequently misunderstood Grand Review that took place in Washington, D.C. at the conclusion of the War, the nature of Union, its relationship to Emancipation, and the Union armies. A final chapter called "Affirmation" takes issue with another frequently voiced claim -- that after the War the North and South reconciled and forgot about Emancipation and about the sources of the conflict. Gallagher examines some or the literature relied upon to support this position. He argues that reconciliationist tendencies did not involve a retreat from the principles of Union and freedom for which the United States fought the Civil War.
Historians study the Civil War to help Americans understand themselves. In addition to Emancipation which is the focus of many prior studies, Gallagher's study emphasizes fully consistent and important goals -- the need for national unity, a shared sense of national purpose, and respect for the military and for sacrifice -- as lessons that can be drawn from the Civil War to help Americans understand our own difficult times.
Robin Friedman
December 12, 2014
Civil War historiography has continually been concerned with identifying the causes of the war and the motivations of nineteenth century America’s warring belligerents. Whether one considers southern historians writing in the first third of the twentieth century that slavery was barely a footnote to the Civil War’s main struggle between states’ rights and federal authority or later scholars influenced by the new social history in the 1960s and 70s that sought to restore the agency and role of African-Americans in determining the outcome of the Civil War and Emancipation, the historiography of the Civil War continually evokes passionate revisions and contentious reinterpretations of nineteenth century sources to try and understand the fundamental question: why was the Civil War fought? Gary W. Gallagher, offers up his interpretation on the Civil War most succinctly in two books: one concerned with the Confederacy’s motivations for fighting the Civil War and the other focused on the Union’s motivations. Both his books converge on a common conclusion that each side had ideological patriotism that led many soldiers to battle in defense of a new nation in the case of the Confederacy and in preservation of the old nation in the case of the Union. While Gallagher assembles fairly convincing source-based arguments to support his main claims, other scholars, including James Oakes, have written books that argue almost directly against his claims looking at fairly similar sources. This contention in modern day scholarship demonstrates the Civil War’s social and political complexity. While scholars attempt to simplify the event by identifying a primal motivation and cause, it seems more wise to admit its complexity and allow for multiple converging causes: some explicit and others more implicit.�
In The Union War, Gallagher argues that most loyal citizens “embraced emancipation as a tool to punish slaveholders, weaken Confederacy, and protect the Union from future internal strife.” In doing so, Gallagher attempts to restore emancipation—which in the second half of the twentieth century has often been read back into history as the main objective northern society had in Civil War—to a secondary position in service to the primary, explicit justification for northern troops to fight the rebelling southern troops: to preserve the Union. This Union-centric view of the Civil War focuses on explicit political rhetoric of northern Republicans and Democrats, which though important, sometimes neglects the fact that politicians will often say what needs to be said publicly to accomplish other hidden agendas. At one point, Gallagher acknowledges that the Republican Party jettisoned their party name in favor of the “Union Party” in 1864 as a move away from its antislavery associations. But rather than interpret this political stunt in its manipulative complexity he concludes that it proves his point of “the power of Union as a rallying cry.” This critique of over-commitment to and oversimplification of his main argument applies to Gallagher’s earlier book The Confederate War as well. While Gallagher successfully produces political and militaristic rhetoric to show that the Confederacy possessed “a sense of national community,” he does seem to overemphasize this point at the expense of acknowledging other knowable motivations for Confederate soldiers to go to war: for their individual property, families, and states for example.
The relatively less troubled and more convincing aspect of Gallagher’s work in both books is his probing the agency of the oft-neglected “pawns” of military history: the everyday soldiers of the Civil War. Political and military leaders become the great historical figures that seem to accomplish more than the average man, but Gallagher reminds his readers that the “humblest soldier who carried a musket is entitled to as much credit for the results of the war as those who were in command.” While this might be slightly hyperbolic, it does move the conversation into a more human and democratic understanding of war. Soldiers, even those conscripted (though admittedly less so), have agency to fight or flee. There may indeed be social and cultural pressures of influence, but ultimately common soldiers make history with their actions. While soldiers’ reasons for fighting were as complex and diverse as the leaders’ reasons (black soldiers for example have their basic freedom on the line), Gallagher does produce a good amount of sources and evidences to demonstrate that many Confederate soldiers did indeed explicitly fight to secure the future of a new nation while many Union soldiers explicitly stated their belief and justification for military action as a patriotic commitment to preserving the Union.
In opposition to Gary Gallagher’s simplistic Union-centric explanation for why the federal government went to war with the seceded states, James Oakes emphatically states that the Republican party and the policies of the United States government before, during, and immediately after the Civil War were consistently and primarily committed to the destruction of slavery throughout all of the United States. While scholars such as Gallagher can point to Republican rhetoric stating that the preservation of the Union was the prime rallying call for the North’s participation in the Civil War, Oakes argues that other sources reveal that the Republican party worked towards the complete abolition of slavery throughout the war. From his perspective, Union preservation was a politically safe way to present the Republican cause for abolishing slavery to a nation (speaking just of the non-seceding northern states) divided on the issue of slavery. In fact, Oakes explicitly says that it was because of northern Democrats (and to a lesser degree some moderate Republicans) that the President and radical Republicans in the Congress had to explicitly justify going to war with the South to preserve the Union “as it was”—with slavery intact—when implicitly the war was being waged to eradicate the institution of slavery throughout the entire nation. While there are some problems with Oakes’ agenda and execution, he does demonstrate that preservation of the Union was indeed the common ground for the northern states explicitly but that the Republicans in power viewed the national destruction of slavery as an integral part in preserving the Union.
Both Gallagher and Oakes have their weak points in attempting to support their overarching argument. If Gallagher can be criticized for oversimplification at times, then Oakes can be found guilty of mixing up interpretation with declaration. For example, Gallagher is so committed to emphasizing the importance and power of the idea of Union, that he seems to ascribe the “intensity of emotion” it evokes to the cause of war. While this may be true, it does not explain why slavery, which also could be described as evoking “an intensity of emotion,” does not figure into his construction of the causes of war. Oakes, on the other hand, seems to put words in Lincoln’s mouth with his declaration that Lincoln “understood that to destroy slavery, the Union had to win the war, and he came to believe that the black troops would help make that happen.” While this is an interesting point, it is more speculative and interpretive; Oakes claims to understand what Lincoln understood without a clear source trail. As written in declarative form, it misrepresents his analysis as fact. In spite of these moments of oversimplification and slight misrepresentation, the overall arguments of the two authors are exhaustively discussed and supported by a fairly diverse set of sources.
In conclusion, Gallagher is right to emphasize that the preservation of the Union was the consistently held, unifying justification for going to war against the south in the northern states, but he may have gone a bit too far in dismissing the influential if less explicit agenda Republicans had in dismantling slavery throughout the United States. He does this chiefly in response to the fact that historians and teachers of history have perhaps gotten a little sloppy in reducing the Civil War to an event that could have only been ended by the emancipation of slaves. Slavery was indeed the central issue of the Civil War, but because of its divisive nature even among northern Republicans and Democrats, the actions taken by the federal government could not move forward in a united way on the issue of slavery alone. It could, and did, more successfully unite the northern states against punishing the southern rebels for seceding and forcefully restoring them to the Union.
With the benefit of writing afterwards, Oakes’ work is more useful than Gallagher’s in explaining the process by which Republicans united and mobilized the northern states to go to war while they strategically working out a way to abolish slavery in the process. Gallagher’s work is successful in checking presentism and the problem of reading history backwards—preservation of the Union is consistently and fairly genuinely the united voice of the northern society—but he seems to have a more superficial and surface-level reading of the sources in comparison to Oakes. Oakes is able to acknowledge the overt political patriotism for the Union identified by Gallagher and still explain how the Republican agenda for freeing the slaves occurred simultaneously (though perhaps not as neatly as he argues). In considering the merits of these two authors’ arguments, however, it is not an either-or scenario; there are multiple voices, multiple motivations spoken and unspoken, and multiple sources that cannot be reduced to a single, united perspective revealing the primary cause of the Civil War. Both works offer valuable insights to the contentious terrain of Civil War historiography.
In The Union War, Gallagher argues that most loyal citizens “embraced emancipation as a tool to punish slaveholders, weaken Confederacy, and protect the Union from future internal strife.” In doing so, Gallagher attempts to restore emancipation—which in the second half of the twentieth century has often been read back into history as the main objective northern society had in Civil War—to a secondary position in service to the primary, explicit justification for northern troops to fight the rebelling southern troops: to preserve the Union. This Union-centric view of the Civil War focuses on explicit political rhetoric of northern Republicans and Democrats, which though important, sometimes neglects the fact that politicians will often say what needs to be said publicly to accomplish other hidden agendas. At one point, Gallagher acknowledges that the Republican Party jettisoned their party name in favor of the “Union Party” in 1864 as a move away from its antislavery associations. But rather than interpret this political stunt in its manipulative complexity he concludes that it proves his point of “the power of Union as a rallying cry.” This critique of over-commitment to and oversimplification of his main argument applies to Gallagher’s earlier book The Confederate War as well. While Gallagher successfully produces political and militaristic rhetoric to show that the Confederacy possessed “a sense of national community,” he does seem to overemphasize this point at the expense of acknowledging other knowable motivations for Confederate soldiers to go to war: for their individual property, families, and states for example.
The relatively less troubled and more convincing aspect of Gallagher’s work in both books is his probing the agency of the oft-neglected “pawns” of military history: the everyday soldiers of the Civil War. Political and military leaders become the great historical figures that seem to accomplish more than the average man, but Gallagher reminds his readers that the “humblest soldier who carried a musket is entitled to as much credit for the results of the war as those who were in command.” While this might be slightly hyperbolic, it does move the conversation into a more human and democratic understanding of war. Soldiers, even those conscripted (though admittedly less so), have agency to fight or flee. There may indeed be social and cultural pressures of influence, but ultimately common soldiers make history with their actions. While soldiers’ reasons for fighting were as complex and diverse as the leaders’ reasons (black soldiers for example have their basic freedom on the line), Gallagher does produce a good amount of sources and evidences to demonstrate that many Confederate soldiers did indeed explicitly fight to secure the future of a new nation while many Union soldiers explicitly stated their belief and justification for military action as a patriotic commitment to preserving the Union.
In opposition to Gary Gallagher’s simplistic Union-centric explanation for why the federal government went to war with the seceded states, James Oakes emphatically states that the Republican party and the policies of the United States government before, during, and immediately after the Civil War were consistently and primarily committed to the destruction of slavery throughout all of the United States. While scholars such as Gallagher can point to Republican rhetoric stating that the preservation of the Union was the prime rallying call for the North’s participation in the Civil War, Oakes argues that other sources reveal that the Republican party worked towards the complete abolition of slavery throughout the war. From his perspective, Union preservation was a politically safe way to present the Republican cause for abolishing slavery to a nation (speaking just of the non-seceding northern states) divided on the issue of slavery. In fact, Oakes explicitly says that it was because of northern Democrats (and to a lesser degree some moderate Republicans) that the President and radical Republicans in the Congress had to explicitly justify going to war with the South to preserve the Union “as it was”—with slavery intact—when implicitly the war was being waged to eradicate the institution of slavery throughout the entire nation. While there are some problems with Oakes’ agenda and execution, he does demonstrate that preservation of the Union was indeed the common ground for the northern states explicitly but that the Republicans in power viewed the national destruction of slavery as an integral part in preserving the Union.
Both Gallagher and Oakes have their weak points in attempting to support their overarching argument. If Gallagher can be criticized for oversimplification at times, then Oakes can be found guilty of mixing up interpretation with declaration. For example, Gallagher is so committed to emphasizing the importance and power of the idea of Union, that he seems to ascribe the “intensity of emotion” it evokes to the cause of war. While this may be true, it does not explain why slavery, which also could be described as evoking “an intensity of emotion,” does not figure into his construction of the causes of war. Oakes, on the other hand, seems to put words in Lincoln’s mouth with his declaration that Lincoln “understood that to destroy slavery, the Union had to win the war, and he came to believe that the black troops would help make that happen.” While this is an interesting point, it is more speculative and interpretive; Oakes claims to understand what Lincoln understood without a clear source trail. As written in declarative form, it misrepresents his analysis as fact. In spite of these moments of oversimplification and slight misrepresentation, the overall arguments of the two authors are exhaustively discussed and supported by a fairly diverse set of sources.
In conclusion, Gallagher is right to emphasize that the preservation of the Union was the consistently held, unifying justification for going to war against the south in the northern states, but he may have gone a bit too far in dismissing the influential if less explicit agenda Republicans had in dismantling slavery throughout the United States. He does this chiefly in response to the fact that historians and teachers of history have perhaps gotten a little sloppy in reducing the Civil War to an event that could have only been ended by the emancipation of slaves. Slavery was indeed the central issue of the Civil War, but because of its divisive nature even among northern Republicans and Democrats, the actions taken by the federal government could not move forward in a united way on the issue of slavery alone. It could, and did, more successfully unite the northern states against punishing the southern rebels for seceding and forcefully restoring them to the Union.
With the benefit of writing afterwards, Oakes’ work is more useful than Gallagher’s in explaining the process by which Republicans united and mobilized the northern states to go to war while they strategically working out a way to abolish slavery in the process. Gallagher’s work is successful in checking presentism and the problem of reading history backwards—preservation of the Union is consistently and fairly genuinely the united voice of the northern society—but he seems to have a more superficial and surface-level reading of the sources in comparison to Oakes. Oakes is able to acknowledge the overt political patriotism for the Union identified by Gallagher and still explain how the Republican agenda for freeing the slaves occurred simultaneously (though perhaps not as neatly as he argues). In considering the merits of these two authors’ arguments, however, it is not an either-or scenario; there are multiple voices, multiple motivations spoken and unspoken, and multiple sources that cannot be reduced to a single, united perspective revealing the primary cause of the Civil War. Both works offer valuable insights to the contentious terrain of Civil War historiography.
December 28, 2021
Gallagher, a top Civil War historian, makes his books both more interesting and more credible by taking issue with other historians, usually by name. This allows Gallagher to present insights that are fresh and crisp and memorable, one of the reasons why this is one of the best Civil War books I've yet read. Gallagher shares three insights that I found especially interesting, all polemical and differing from some received wisdom but yet all backed up by good support and evidence:
1. On Methodology: Both popular history that's concerned only with battles and generals and doesn't care much about politics on the one hand, and academic history on the other that looks down on battles and shifts the focus to revisionist topics like the impact of civilians from the enslaved to women to immigrants on the war's outcome are incomplete. You can't just talk about battles and generals but you also can't forget about them. They made their own huge impact on the outcome of the war and emancipation.
2. Perhaps the book's main point: Though the war was certainly caused by slavery (despite claims of Lost Cause liars) most Northerners didn't fight to free slaves as an end goal, but to save the Union. And this was a good enough goal for them, whether slavery was ended or not. After the first couple years of the war, most Northerners did come to accept that attacking Southern slavery would help win the war. And then they later accepted that abolishing slavery completely would remove the main cause for sectional conflict and help prevent a civil war in the future. But outside of abolitionists, Northerners agreed with Lincoln's famous letter to Horace Greeley that he would save the Union with all, some, or no slaves freed.
3. Presentist history writing: That gets to another point on method and historiography. Today, saving the Union doesn't appeal to many Americans, including historians, so we project into the past that saving the Union cannot have been a good enough reason for Northerners to fight but that they must have really fought for racial equity. If not at the beginning of the war, then at least by its end. But that's just not true, according to the evidence from letters that soldiers wrote home, newspaper articles and regimental histories. From beginning to end, and even for two or three decades afterwards, Northerners said that they were fighting to preserve the integrity of the nation, not to free slaves.
What does it all mean? Two things mainly.
First, for me, an interest in promoting racial equity today and learning about the history of race to support a more fair and equitable future led me to care about the Civil War in the first place. We have to accept that most Northerners were far less concerned with race than Americans today. And if we're doing history rather than propaganda, then we have to avoid judging them for it. Black people represented such a small minority of the population of most northern states (under 1% in most cases) that most white people didn't know any personally and, understandably, thought about them little.
Understanding this helps explain why the last 150 years, starting with Reconstruction, unfolded the way they did. Race was always going to be maddeningly hard to deal with after the end of slavery. There wasn't some magic moment right after the war or during Reconstruction when white Americans could've "gotten race right." Gallagher points out that white Americans in 1860-1880, North or South, held deeply seated racial prejudices. So, Northerners only went as far as they did with Reconstruction laws and amendments not out of a real concern for Black Southerners but instead because white Southerners pushed back so hard against accepting the consequences of abolition. In the end, it was all still about Union.
Second, understanding how much Northerners valued Union and why raises the question of whether the unity of the United States might be worth something today too. In the Civil War, Northerners saw the American republic as an experiment in democracy unique in world history worth preserving but incredibly fragile in a world of kings, despots and aristocrats. The biggest threat to that noble experiment were the oligarchs of the South, the planters who presided over an economy and social system based on racial and class hierarchy and diametrically opposed to the free-labor system of the North, a system necessary for democracy to flourish.
Might we also start to question oligarchy in today's America? Might white and Black Americans, and citizens of all other colors, have more in common across racial lines than today's focus on race might make us think? For the 99% of Americans of all races who are not billionaires, might our interests align in making the economy more balanced by closing huge disparities in wealth between the very rich and the rest of us? And might the American state, represented by the starry banner that thrilled the hearts of loyal Unionists during the Civil War, not be the enemy, as generations of small-government propaganda from the corporate right combined with post-Vietnam malaise from the far left have taught us?
This is a powerful book that encourages a new view of conflict, nationalism and race in the America of Lincoln, Andrew Johnson and Grant. It might also encourage a reader to consider those same issues in a new light in the America of Obama, Trump and Biden.
1. On Methodology: Both popular history that's concerned only with battles and generals and doesn't care much about politics on the one hand, and academic history on the other that looks down on battles and shifts the focus to revisionist topics like the impact of civilians from the enslaved to women to immigrants on the war's outcome are incomplete. You can't just talk about battles and generals but you also can't forget about them. They made their own huge impact on the outcome of the war and emancipation.
2. Perhaps the book's main point: Though the war was certainly caused by slavery (despite claims of Lost Cause liars) most Northerners didn't fight to free slaves as an end goal, but to save the Union. And this was a good enough goal for them, whether slavery was ended or not. After the first couple years of the war, most Northerners did come to accept that attacking Southern slavery would help win the war. And then they later accepted that abolishing slavery completely would remove the main cause for sectional conflict and help prevent a civil war in the future. But outside of abolitionists, Northerners agreed with Lincoln's famous letter to Horace Greeley that he would save the Union with all, some, or no slaves freed.
3. Presentist history writing: That gets to another point on method and historiography. Today, saving the Union doesn't appeal to many Americans, including historians, so we project into the past that saving the Union cannot have been a good enough reason for Northerners to fight but that they must have really fought for racial equity. If not at the beginning of the war, then at least by its end. But that's just not true, according to the evidence from letters that soldiers wrote home, newspaper articles and regimental histories. From beginning to end, and even for two or three decades afterwards, Northerners said that they were fighting to preserve the integrity of the nation, not to free slaves.
What does it all mean? Two things mainly.
First, for me, an interest in promoting racial equity today and learning about the history of race to support a more fair and equitable future led me to care about the Civil War in the first place. We have to accept that most Northerners were far less concerned with race than Americans today. And if we're doing history rather than propaganda, then we have to avoid judging them for it. Black people represented such a small minority of the population of most northern states (under 1% in most cases) that most white people didn't know any personally and, understandably, thought about them little.
Understanding this helps explain why the last 150 years, starting with Reconstruction, unfolded the way they did. Race was always going to be maddeningly hard to deal with after the end of slavery. There wasn't some magic moment right after the war or during Reconstruction when white Americans could've "gotten race right." Gallagher points out that white Americans in 1860-1880, North or South, held deeply seated racial prejudices. So, Northerners only went as far as they did with Reconstruction laws and amendments not out of a real concern for Black Southerners but instead because white Southerners pushed back so hard against accepting the consequences of abolition. In the end, it was all still about Union.
Second, understanding how much Northerners valued Union and why raises the question of whether the unity of the United States might be worth something today too. In the Civil War, Northerners saw the American republic as an experiment in democracy unique in world history worth preserving but incredibly fragile in a world of kings, despots and aristocrats. The biggest threat to that noble experiment were the oligarchs of the South, the planters who presided over an economy and social system based on racial and class hierarchy and diametrically opposed to the free-labor system of the North, a system necessary for democracy to flourish.
Might we also start to question oligarchy in today's America? Might white and Black Americans, and citizens of all other colors, have more in common across racial lines than today's focus on race might make us think? For the 99% of Americans of all races who are not billionaires, might our interests align in making the economy more balanced by closing huge disparities in wealth between the very rich and the rest of us? And might the American state, represented by the starry banner that thrilled the hearts of loyal Unionists during the Civil War, not be the enemy, as generations of small-government propaganda from the corporate right combined with post-Vietnam malaise from the far left have taught us?
This is a powerful book that encourages a new view of conflict, nationalism and race in the America of Lincoln, Andrew Johnson and Grant. It might also encourage a reader to consider those same issues in a new light in the America of Obama, Trump and Biden.
October 31, 2012
The Union War, written by Gary Gallagher and published in 2011, provides a self-acclaimed revisionist history of the view of the goals of the Union during the Civil War. He explains that when one thinks about that particular war, we see the Union cause as that of abolition. In this book, Gallagher argues that the Union and President Abraham Lincoln were motivated not by the issue of slavery, but instead by the preservation of the union. In order to show that this was the viewpoint of the time, he has organized the book topically to examine and provide information that shows the emphasis of Union as the basis for fighting against their own countrymen in the Civil War.
The book is organized topically into five chapters. In the first chapter, “The Grand Review,” which discusses that event that took place to celebrate the end of the war and evaluates it in regard to those who participated in the event on May 23-24, 1865. Here, Gallagher exaggerates the view of the ceremony by its participants and spectators as celebration of the defeat of the Confederacy and a unified United States. He also adds, that the Review had many of the same undertones of Antebellum America proving that the war was not about race but of protecting the union. He writes that when historians, “strip away the waving flags and celebratory chest-thumping, and what remained was a soon-to-be-reunited nation that looked much like the racist, exclusionary, oppressive United States of the prewar era.”(8). He explains that no white military regiments participated in the march and that newspaper accounts did not mention that fact, but instead emphasized victory and the resulting salvage of democracy and self-government.
The second chapter, titled “Union,” details the idea that preservation of the union was the foremost goal of the citizens of the North and of President Lincoln. Gallagher argues that the cause for entering the war by the northerners was to maintain self-government and the United States Constitution and points out that many, including the president, supported doing whatever it took in order to meet that goal. Here, he discusses the idea that the Unionists, as many historians have named them, would accept anything that would allow the union to be maintained, including the abolition of slavery. He cites Lincoln’s words pertaining to the issue of abolition, where he discussed the issue in a public letter, writing that his goal was, “to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.” Gallagher also mentions the main battle hymn for the North, The Battle Cry of Freedom, also declared that the preservation of the union was the primary objective and that the rebellion needed to be put down in order to maintain and protect the Constitution.
Next, Gallagher deals with the idea of emancipation and how the soldiers reacted. Essentially, he writes that, “soldiers manifested no interest in Lincoln’s words,” (85) regarding the Emancipation Proclamation. He points out that most northerners were apathetic to the idea of abolition as a reason for going to war. They instead saw it as a necessity for winning the war that would protect the idea that a Republican government could be successful. Next, the book explains the views of civilians pertaining to those who fought in the war and points out that northerners viewed them as “The National Army” and Ulysses Grant as its leader because it transcended partisan lines. In essence, Gallagher argues that they were seen as such because they saw it as their duty to fight for the Union instead of making political gains. Finally, Gallagher explains what he views as the final purpose for the emancipation of slaves was to remove slavery as a source for conflict in the future. He argues that when the war ended, northerners viewed it with a sense of accomplishment because they had preserved the Union, gotten rid of the slaveholding aristocracy of the South, and removed slavery as a source of future contention. He points out that the Civil War changed how Americans thought of their country by writing that, “during the Antebellum years, most people said, ‘the United States are....’ After the war, however, they said ‘The United States is...’ revealing for the first time an understanding of the whole as greater than the constituent parts.” (161) Finally, the book concludes that Union soldiers saved the one true democratic republic of the time that provided an example of popular self-rule for the rest of the world. (162)
Reviewers of The Union War are for the most part supportive of Gallagher’s conclusion that the war was, for the most part, fought in order to preserve the Union. They applaud him for his differing viewpoint from the consensus and the sources that he used including letters and other primary resources from those fighting in the war. There is also opposition to his thesis though. David Goldfield, in his review, pointed out that Gallagher ignores the idea that the Northern cause was not only about preserving the Union but also the fact that they were fighting for religious reasons, and the idea that they were backed by God. Another weakness that is pointed out, includes the idea that Gallagher ignores the views of northern Democrats, who may have had a different perspective on the reasons for fighting the Civil War. They also point out that he spends a significant amount of time refuting other authors instead of sticking to his topic of providing information to support his thesis, but note that his narrative style is strong
The reviews of this book are spot on. Gallagher is known for his readable prose and narrates the stories that he tells throughout the book extremely well. The supporting information that he provides for his thesis, as well as his sources are all appropriate, and his explanation of each source and how it relates to the thesis of the Union cause is done well. It is refreshing to read a different view of the Civil War, opposed to the typical idea that was an ideological war in order to abolish slavery. Though it was an issue, Gallagher explains the correlation between abolition and union well, by explaining that it was a necessity in order to harm the Confederate military and economic force at their disposal. The book provides a significant addition to the study of the Civil War because of that refreshing viewpoint, opposing the consensus, and bringing to light a different perspective on the reasons for the northern cause—Union.
The book is organized topically into five chapters. In the first chapter, “The Grand Review,” which discusses that event that took place to celebrate the end of the war and evaluates it in regard to those who participated in the event on May 23-24, 1865. Here, Gallagher exaggerates the view of the ceremony by its participants and spectators as celebration of the defeat of the Confederacy and a unified United States. He also adds, that the Review had many of the same undertones of Antebellum America proving that the war was not about race but of protecting the union. He writes that when historians, “strip away the waving flags and celebratory chest-thumping, and what remained was a soon-to-be-reunited nation that looked much like the racist, exclusionary, oppressive United States of the prewar era.”(8). He explains that no white military regiments participated in the march and that newspaper accounts did not mention that fact, but instead emphasized victory and the resulting salvage of democracy and self-government.
The second chapter, titled “Union,” details the idea that preservation of the union was the foremost goal of the citizens of the North and of President Lincoln. Gallagher argues that the cause for entering the war by the northerners was to maintain self-government and the United States Constitution and points out that many, including the president, supported doing whatever it took in order to meet that goal. Here, he discusses the idea that the Unionists, as many historians have named them, would accept anything that would allow the union to be maintained, including the abolition of slavery. He cites Lincoln’s words pertaining to the issue of abolition, where he discussed the issue in a public letter, writing that his goal was, “to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.” Gallagher also mentions the main battle hymn for the North, The Battle Cry of Freedom, also declared that the preservation of the union was the primary objective and that the rebellion needed to be put down in order to maintain and protect the Constitution.
Next, Gallagher deals with the idea of emancipation and how the soldiers reacted. Essentially, he writes that, “soldiers manifested no interest in Lincoln’s words,” (85) regarding the Emancipation Proclamation. He points out that most northerners were apathetic to the idea of abolition as a reason for going to war. They instead saw it as a necessity for winning the war that would protect the idea that a Republican government could be successful. Next, the book explains the views of civilians pertaining to those who fought in the war and points out that northerners viewed them as “The National Army” and Ulysses Grant as its leader because it transcended partisan lines. In essence, Gallagher argues that they were seen as such because they saw it as their duty to fight for the Union instead of making political gains. Finally, Gallagher explains what he views as the final purpose for the emancipation of slaves was to remove slavery as a source for conflict in the future. He argues that when the war ended, northerners viewed it with a sense of accomplishment because they had preserved the Union, gotten rid of the slaveholding aristocracy of the South, and removed slavery as a source of future contention. He points out that the Civil War changed how Americans thought of their country by writing that, “during the Antebellum years, most people said, ‘the United States are....’ After the war, however, they said ‘The United States is...’ revealing for the first time an understanding of the whole as greater than the constituent parts.” (161) Finally, the book concludes that Union soldiers saved the one true democratic republic of the time that provided an example of popular self-rule for the rest of the world. (162)
Reviewers of The Union War are for the most part supportive of Gallagher’s conclusion that the war was, for the most part, fought in order to preserve the Union. They applaud him for his differing viewpoint from the consensus and the sources that he used including letters and other primary resources from those fighting in the war. There is also opposition to his thesis though. David Goldfield, in his review, pointed out that Gallagher ignores the idea that the Northern cause was not only about preserving the Union but also the fact that they were fighting for religious reasons, and the idea that they were backed by God. Another weakness that is pointed out, includes the idea that Gallagher ignores the views of northern Democrats, who may have had a different perspective on the reasons for fighting the Civil War. They also point out that he spends a significant amount of time refuting other authors instead of sticking to his topic of providing information to support his thesis, but note that his narrative style is strong
The reviews of this book are spot on. Gallagher is known for his readable prose and narrates the stories that he tells throughout the book extremely well. The supporting information that he provides for his thesis, as well as his sources are all appropriate, and his explanation of each source and how it relates to the thesis of the Union cause is done well. It is refreshing to read a different view of the Civil War, opposed to the typical idea that was an ideological war in order to abolish slavery. Though it was an issue, Gallagher explains the correlation between abolition and union well, by explaining that it was a necessity in order to harm the Confederate military and economic force at their disposal. The book provides a significant addition to the study of the Civil War because of that refreshing viewpoint, opposing the consensus, and bringing to light a different perspective on the reasons for the northern cause—Union.
March 15, 2025
This is a very fine and important contribution to Civil War scholarship but it seems to me a pity that Gallagher did not expand these five essays into a more thorough and robust defense of his thesis.
With notes and index this book is only 215 pages long. Yet in declining to engage one troublesome analytical approach that has become especially popular in the academy he cites "constraints of space." One cannot help suspecting that he was restrained by something other than spatial limitations.
With notes and index this book is only 215 pages long. Yet in declining to engage one troublesome analytical approach that has become especially popular in the academy he cites "constraints of space." One cannot help suspecting that he was restrained by something other than spatial limitations.
November 19, 2019
Gary Gallagher has a clear thesis - the Civil War was fought by white northerners for the cause of union, full stop - and clings tightly to that thesis throughout. There's value in that approach, and he brings to bear some good evidence for his claims. For instance, he does a good job using reaction to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address as evidence that his contemporaries didn't interpret that address as changing the meaning of the war, or redefining America, in the way that many modern historians do. Similarly, his evidence black fugitives' enlistments rates in the USCT disproportionately favoring areas under longer Union control (e.g. the upper and lower Mississippi, the state of Tennessee, parts of eastern and western Virginia) over areas where the Union army had less or no control (e.g. much of Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia) strongly supports his claim that it's the army that's the principal driver of emancipation, rather than the slaves themselves.
However, he routinely paints himself into rhetorical corners that are entirely of his own making, and does so seemingly to grind axes with fellow historians, whom he sees as distorting the meaning and significance of the war. It seems as though Gallagher was fed up with post-1970 Civil War scholarship, and has some things he needs to get off his chest. Where he goes quite astray is in his Manichean historiography of the war. Yes, Civil War scholars have moved away from a battlefield focus over the last forty years to one that recognizes the roles of slaves, freed people and white civilians. However, I'm not aware of any scholar who would claim that the North wasn't fighting for union. Similarly, no serious historian would deny the role played by the Union Army in liberating slaves. Gallagher could certainly push back against these arguments, but he could do so in disagreements of degree, not kind. It's not clear exactly how many of his cookies were stolen at the last gathering of Civil War historians, but it must have been numerous, given his vituperative attacks on other scholars.
In looking for a particular quote from this book, I came across a review that I think addresses some of the major flaws of Gallagher's analysis, published in the Summer 2011 Wilson Quarterly, and available here: https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/quart...
However, he routinely paints himself into rhetorical corners that are entirely of his own making, and does so seemingly to grind axes with fellow historians, whom he sees as distorting the meaning and significance of the war. It seems as though Gallagher was fed up with post-1970 Civil War scholarship, and has some things he needs to get off his chest. Where he goes quite astray is in his Manichean historiography of the war. Yes, Civil War scholars have moved away from a battlefield focus over the last forty years to one that recognizes the roles of slaves, freed people and white civilians. However, I'm not aware of any scholar who would claim that the North wasn't fighting for union. Similarly, no serious historian would deny the role played by the Union Army in liberating slaves. Gallagher could certainly push back against these arguments, but he could do so in disagreements of degree, not kind. It's not clear exactly how many of his cookies were stolen at the last gathering of Civil War historians, but it must have been numerous, given his vituperative attacks on other scholars.
In looking for a particular quote from this book, I came across a review that I think addresses some of the major flaws of Gallagher's analysis, published in the Summer 2011 Wilson Quarterly, and available here: https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/quart...
December 28, 2016
A thoughtful, concise, and thorough analysis of the reasons why the North fought the Civil War. Each chapter covers a different aspect of the "Union War." Gallagher begins at the end, with a discussion of the Grand Review that marked the end of the war: why it occurred, what it meant, and its controversies both at the time and during the present. From there, he goes on to examine the idea of Union, the reasons for emancipation, and the role of the military in directing the war.
There are quite a few things to say in favor of Gallagher's book. Although it can be dense at times, it is still enjoyable--if slow--reading. In addition, Gallagher backs up each of his points with a large number of primary sources. He is also careful to never overstep the bounds of the evidence, making it clear when certain points are unclear or controversial. For example, when analyzing letters sent from the front, he discusses the problems of cherrypicking evidence to support a preconceived viewpoint, and how this causes problems for historians.
If Gallagher has a fault, it is the lack of a central thesis or argument. Without a clear thread running throughout, it can be difficult to follow his train of thought. Partly, this is due to the nature of his writing--the causes of the Civil War are complex, and any attempt to boil them down to a single statement will necessarily be an oversimplification. In a similar vein, this is more an academic work than a popular one. Gallagher assumes that the reader is already familiar with the Civil War, and this would be difficult reading for anyone who does not already have a good understanding of the important battles, events, and figures before picking up the book.
There are quite a few things to say in favor of Gallagher's book. Although it can be dense at times, it is still enjoyable--if slow--reading. In addition, Gallagher backs up each of his points with a large number of primary sources. He is also careful to never overstep the bounds of the evidence, making it clear when certain points are unclear or controversial. For example, when analyzing letters sent from the front, he discusses the problems of cherrypicking evidence to support a preconceived viewpoint, and how this causes problems for historians.
If Gallagher has a fault, it is the lack of a central thesis or argument. Without a clear thread running throughout, it can be difficult to follow his train of thought. Partly, this is due to the nature of his writing--the causes of the Civil War are complex, and any attempt to boil them down to a single statement will necessarily be an oversimplification. In a similar vein, this is more an academic work than a popular one. Gallagher assumes that the reader is already familiar with the Civil War, and this would be difficult reading for anyone who does not already have a good understanding of the important battles, events, and figures before picking up the book.
June 27, 2012
Gallagher is a great lecturer (Listen to his lectures on the Teaching Company series)
This book makes a simple point, really. The cause and inspiration of the Civil war, from the loyal Northern perspective was the cause of UNION. Modern interpretations have morphed this into a primary battle for freedom and equality. Other historians insist that in reality, the blacks freed themselves by desertion and aiding the Union cause. Some downplay the role of the military in the outcome of the war.
Gallagher takes to task all of these and many more misguided assertions. He is best in defending his claims against all-comers. He has the credentials and background to make his claims stick. But that does make this book a very interesting read. Citing journals, memoirs, diaries and other contemporary documents, over and again he drives home his point. But really, can one find an equal number of diaries to refute his points and make counter arguments?
I think my complaint about this book is that I feel it could have been condensed into a well written though long essay. I found part of the book to drag on, repeating over and again his point.
I love alternative points of view and realize that all history is colored by the historian himself. For an alternative to modern scholars, Gallagher is there to “set the record straight”. But I wouldn’t recommend this book to anyone except one who is absolutely convinced that the war was won by runaway slaves and that the only cause worth fighting for was freedom and emancipation.
This book makes a simple point, really. The cause and inspiration of the Civil war, from the loyal Northern perspective was the cause of UNION. Modern interpretations have morphed this into a primary battle for freedom and equality. Other historians insist that in reality, the blacks freed themselves by desertion and aiding the Union cause. Some downplay the role of the military in the outcome of the war.
Gallagher takes to task all of these and many more misguided assertions. He is best in defending his claims against all-comers. He has the credentials and background to make his claims stick. But that does make this book a very interesting read. Citing journals, memoirs, diaries and other contemporary documents, over and again he drives home his point. But really, can one find an equal number of diaries to refute his points and make counter arguments?
I think my complaint about this book is that I feel it could have been condensed into a well written though long essay. I found part of the book to drag on, repeating over and again his point.
I love alternative points of view and realize that all history is colored by the historian himself. For an alternative to modern scholars, Gallagher is there to “set the record straight”. But I wouldn’t recommend this book to anyone except one who is absolutely convinced that the war was won by runaway slaves and that the only cause worth fighting for was freedom and emancipation.
December 28, 2022
A strong account of what motivated Union soldiers to fight.
Gallagher offers exhaustive evidence that while the Confederacy was fighting to preserve slavery (and -- sigh -- its 'right' to decide its states like to have slavery), the Union soldiers really were not fighting for emancipation ... it was fighting to maintain the United States as a workable government and country.
For me, the result is a more honest understanding of history -- that I can add those comforting thoughts onto the deeper truths -- which lead to a more meaningful understanding of the real history of the United States.
I found the book to be well written, convincing, and interesting.
One problem I had with the book, though, was that it seemed to be written for other historians -- almost as part of an inside-baseball argument. He readily acknowledges that ALL his research is in primary sources, which is somewhat limiting in terms of "telling the story" that would make this a more accessible read.
Gallagher offers exhaustive evidence that while the Confederacy was fighting to preserve slavery (and -- sigh -- its 'right' to decide its states like to have slavery), the Union soldiers really were not fighting for emancipation ... it was fighting to maintain the United States as a workable government and country.
For me, the result is a more honest understanding of history -- that I can add those comforting thoughts onto the deeper truths -- which lead to a more meaningful understanding of the real history of the United States.
I found the book to be well written, convincing, and interesting.
One problem I had with the book, though, was that it seemed to be written for other historians -- almost as part of an inside-baseball argument. He readily acknowledges that ALL his research is in primary sources, which is somewhat limiting in terms of "telling the story" that would make this a more accessible read.
November 6, 2013
Gallagher re-explores the main arguments about the Union effort to defeat the Confederacy and, as he did with THE CONFEDERATE WAR (should be read in conjunction with this book), he shows that the revisionist histories of recent decades do not bear up against the weight of the evidence. Most interesting is his comparison of the motives of Federal soldiers regarding restoration of the Union on the one hand and emancipation of slaves on the other, and the evolution of those views from 1863 to 1865. Gallagher's account gives what seems to me to be a more realistic perspective on this gradual process of commitment to freedom for slaves. He gives a wonderful account of the fundamental importance of the military campaigns, a feature overlooked to a certain extent in recent decades by scholars in this field, it seems.
September 22, 2015
An excellent history book examining the 1860's idea of "Union" and what motivated the northern soldiers to enlist. This book examines the historiography of the Union war idea and draws heavily from primary sources to explain the attitudes and feelings of the mid-19th Century.
If you want to know truth about the northern men's motivation for enlisting and their feelings throughout the war, this is a great resource. Highly, highly recommended!
If you want to know truth about the northern men's motivation for enlisting and their feelings throughout the war, this is a great resource. Highly, highly recommended!
February 2, 2016
More like an extended essay than a fully formed argument, Gallagher has nevertheless pointed out what many of us forget: the union as the central issue for the northern armies. This explains why the North chose reunion with the South over a continued struggle for equal rights. The wonder is that the attempt was even made, given the pervasive racial views in the North.
February 9, 2016
4.5. Lively. Gallagher holds no punches.
September 25, 2019
Good book - I enjoyed his willingness to engage with the current historical trends. He specifically names historians he disagrees with and says why. This kind of clarity of thought is really engaging. I think he makes a very good "rebound" case that we have swung the pendulum too far away from embracing the idea of Union as a core motivation for the North's willingness to fight in the Civil War.
One key item felt very unsatisfying - he spoke early on of the inability to produce a coherent thread of opinion through the voluminous soldier correspondence, yet he attempts exactly that for the second half of the book. It would have been useful for him to give more explanation why his analysis of excerpts from soldiers letters was better than those he criticized earlier.
Still a short, useful, and interesting book
One key item felt very unsatisfying - he spoke early on of the inability to produce a coherent thread of opinion through the voluminous soldier correspondence, yet he attempts exactly that for the second half of the book. It would have been useful for him to give more explanation why his analysis of excerpts from soldiers letters was better than those he criticized earlier.
Still a short, useful, and interesting book
August 28, 2023
Listened to this through Audible Plus, and I'm glad I did. Gallagher knows the Civil War. Even though he didn't narrate this book, it was still evident by word choice that he'd written it.
Once more, we get a deeper insight into the politics and culture of the era, focusing mainly on the Northern ideology. Quotes from primary sources are extensive and tied together well. The work is cohesive. It's also short enough to be a one day read.
This book belongs on the shelf of any Civil War buff in any format.
Once more, we get a deeper insight into the politics and culture of the era, focusing mainly on the Northern ideology. Quotes from primary sources are extensive and tied together well. The work is cohesive. It's also short enough to be a one day read.
This book belongs on the shelf of any Civil War buff in any format.
September 4, 2023
Gallagher uses a nuanced approach to the Civil War in his lectures and books. In this work he takes apart the notion that the Civil War was fought by the North “To free the slaves”. It was to preserve the Union, only later did emancipation become a post hoc rationale for the conflict. War for the purpose of abolition was a minority viewpoint, and certainly not one held by Lincoln. Emancipation at first was a means of kneecapping the Confederate economy.
It’s an excellent work, but probably better as a physical book rather than the Audible recorded version.
It’s an excellent work, but probably better as a physical book rather than the Audible recorded version.
April 28, 2024
Really good review of the holding union together view of Civil War
I had listened to previous history lecture series by the lecturer so added this one. Saw it was leaving Plus catalog on 5/7/24 so moved it up the to listen list. Really was informative on the policy side of the war.
I listened with Audible and it’s leaving the plus catalog. But I bet it’s available from local libraries and perhaps on Libby.
I had listened to previous history lecture series by the lecturer so added this one. Saw it was leaving Plus catalog on 5/7/24 so moved it up the to listen list. Really was informative on the policy side of the war.
I listened with Audible and it’s leaving the plus catalog. But I bet it’s available from local libraries and perhaps on Libby.
July 10, 2020
He does it again. 164 pages because its only as long as it needs to be. Gallagher explains why the primary goal was Union. This book easily has as much info as other books 2-3 times its length. He has a gift for taking information we all know and combining it in new ways that brings astounding revalations to light.
July 8, 2021
A preeminent scholar of the American Civil War, Dr. Gary W. Gallagher examines the motivations of the men from Maine to California who donned Union Blue in the American Civil War. A magisterial study of the twin ideas of Union and Liberty, Gallagher swiftly and decisively argues his case for a need to recontextualize the idea of the common man in the Federal army and his reasons for enlisting.
January 22, 2018
The book contributes to understanding why the northerners fought the war. It was not to eliminate slavery, but to maintain the union. The author also brings in other points of view that disagree with his.
Read
February 14, 2020This book claims to be other than what it is. It claims that it will show how Union was the central motivation for most Northerners, but it is unfocused and doesn't show that.
November 23, 2021
To understand the Union soldiers devotion to the United States. Read this book!
March 21, 2022
Good insight on the union but at sometimes contradictory.
December 23, 2011
Gary Gallagher has written an excellent, interesting, and persuasive book. If you think the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery, well, you need to take a look at this book. Actually, slavery was an integral cause of the war, but that's not why people enlisted and that's not why the war was fought. The war was fought (at least from the point of view of the "North") over the issue of "Union," which was paramount. It's true that without slavery, there would have been no Civil War. But we need to distinguish the causes of the war both from the other motive forces as well as from the people's own self-understanding of the war at the time.
This is the first book I've read of Gallagher's -- I'll try to make room for his other book on "The Confederate War" at some later date. It really presupposes that you know the basic outline of the war. So don't look for battle scenes, political maneuvering, or armies marching North and armies marching South. Yes, that is discussed, but Gallagher's focus is on the heart of the war in people's minds at the time. I especially liked his analysis of the words to "Battle Cry of Freedom," and the way he sorts out the evidence by continually coming back to how people actually saw events at the time.
If we think that the war for Union became a war to end slavery, we set ourselves up for historical disappointment. We then are at a loss to explain why, after expending all this blood and money over the war for emancipation, the U. S. then turned its back on blacks for nearly a century -- literally. The truth is that in the minds of most Northerners, the war was not "about" slavery in the first place; the abolitionists were a minority.
Prejudice against blacks was just as great in the North as it was in the South, and there was never any clear plan for what to "do" with the blacks when the war ended. The North was against slavery to a great extent just because the slaves were competition for "free labor," and also for exactly the reasons Lincoln spelled out in the Emancipation Proclamation, because slavery propped up the slave republic that was dividing the country. So slavery was a key issue, no doubt about it; but in the minds of the people, the war was really about whether we were going to be one nation or two, and whether we were or ever had been a nation at all. It was about the Union.
This is the first book I've read of Gallagher's -- I'll try to make room for his other book on "The Confederate War" at some later date. It really presupposes that you know the basic outline of the war. So don't look for battle scenes, political maneuvering, or armies marching North and armies marching South. Yes, that is discussed, but Gallagher's focus is on the heart of the war in people's minds at the time. I especially liked his analysis of the words to "Battle Cry of Freedom," and the way he sorts out the evidence by continually coming back to how people actually saw events at the time.
If we think that the war for Union became a war to end slavery, we set ourselves up for historical disappointment. We then are at a loss to explain why, after expending all this blood and money over the war for emancipation, the U. S. then turned its back on blacks for nearly a century -- literally. The truth is that in the minds of most Northerners, the war was not "about" slavery in the first place; the abolitionists were a minority.
Prejudice against blacks was just as great in the North as it was in the South, and there was never any clear plan for what to "do" with the blacks when the war ended. The North was against slavery to a great extent just because the slaves were competition for "free labor," and also for exactly the reasons Lincoln spelled out in the Emancipation Proclamation, because slavery propped up the slave republic that was dividing the country. So slavery was a key issue, no doubt about it; but in the minds of the people, the war was really about whether we were going to be one nation or two, and whether we were or ever had been a nation at all. It was about the Union.
November 21, 2011
In this well researched, scholarly book, Gary Gallagher makes a compelling case for the fact that it wasn't the abolition of slavery that gave the North the will to fight, and win, the Civil War, but the desire to maintain the Union. He cites numerous speeches, articles and letters from Northern soldiers all focusing on the need to preserve the Union. He goes on to make the argument that Emancipation was seen as a weapon of war to weaken the South and bring down what Northerners referred to as the "Southern Oligarchy." Except for the die hard Abolitionists, this was true, Mr. Gallagher maintains.
He cautions against a common mistake that we all make. That is, we apply our 20th Century morals and thinking to the past. So, while we'd like to say the Civil War was about abolishing the inhumane practice of slavery, during that time, most Northerners couldn't care less about that and were more focused on preserving the Union.
Mr. Gallagher also points out that the make-up of the Union Army was unique in the world at that time. Unlike the rest of the world, especially Europe, the Northern Army consisted of citizen soldiers, and not professional soldiers. After the war, the vast majority of Union Army soldiers returned to their pre-war civilian lives as farmers, tradesmen, merchants, et al. According to Mr. Gallagher that was a great source of pride among Americans at that time.
I highly recommend this book and would have given it five stars except for the fact that, while Mr. Gallagher's research and citings are quite comprehensive, his writing style leaves a little to be desired. It does read like a term paper. But if you are a Civil War buff, this book provides an insight and perspective that is not too well known. I'm looking forward to reading his companion piece, "The Confederate War."
He cautions against a common mistake that we all make. That is, we apply our 20th Century morals and thinking to the past. So, while we'd like to say the Civil War was about abolishing the inhumane practice of slavery, during that time, most Northerners couldn't care less about that and were more focused on preserving the Union.
Mr. Gallagher also points out that the make-up of the Union Army was unique in the world at that time. Unlike the rest of the world, especially Europe, the Northern Army consisted of citizen soldiers, and not professional soldiers. After the war, the vast majority of Union Army soldiers returned to their pre-war civilian lives as farmers, tradesmen, merchants, et al. According to Mr. Gallagher that was a great source of pride among Americans at that time.
I highly recommend this book and would have given it five stars except for the fact that, while Mr. Gallagher's research and citings are quite comprehensive, his writing style leaves a little to be desired. It does read like a term paper. But if you are a Civil War buff, this book provides an insight and perspective that is not too well known. I'm looking forward to reading his companion piece, "The Confederate War."
April 28, 2015
Gary Gallagher’s “The Union War” is a difficult but necessary pill for today’s citizen living in the United States to swallow. We moderns are used to understanding the American Civil War as the gateway to the death of slavery and the impetus for ushering in that later civil contest, the Civil Rights Movement. This book is significant for restoring perspective on the motivations of the Federal victory and the North’s war efforts back to the goals and beliefs of the men and women who waged that war and lived during this tumultuous period of American history. The Yankees, as much as, if not more than, their southern counterparts, were quite bellicose in their racism and dreamed of a white American republic without black labor, free or enslaved. Despite limited abolitionist war measures and the overblown narratives of modern revisionist historians, the Federals fought a war to safeguard the American Union for a white national populace. Although there was a demonstrable abolitionist voice in the North, it was a vocal minority and had almost zero effect on northern war efforts. Northern war aims always remained the restoration of the union of the states and the preservation of the Federal republic and were never intended or fought as an anti-slavery crusade. According to Gallagher, abolition and emancipation can at best be savored as fruits of a war to safeguard the union, preserve northern ideals, and protect federal power.
March 13, 2014
Gallagher has done well to give us more to think about in the rationale for why people went to war in the 1860s. There was, I think, a telling vignette in the last few dozen pages (40 minutes or so) where he contrasts the thinking of W.E.B. DuBois on African-Americans rising up, and that of McPherson on slaves being liberated at the muzzles of Union weaponry. I have never been a real Civil War buff, but have visited battlefields at Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chattanooga, and Kennesaw, GA. I keep meaning to visit Gettysburg, but always seem to be on the way to somewhere else. However, buff or not, it is awe-inspiring to contemplate the thousands of men (whether important or not, they were after all mostly men) who marched into to the face of artillery and musketry to be mowed down in the cause of the side for which they fought. And in the final pages, Gallagher points out that from the hundreds of thousands (1.? M) the Army shrank during the Western campaigns to be in the mid-twenty thousands up until entry into WWI. What has happened to our citizen soldiery? It makes me hearken again to Andrew Bacevich's "Breach of Trust"
Read
August 3, 2011Gallagher, one of the nation’s preeminent Civil War scholars and a professor at the University of Virginia, deals in his latest book of the question of why did the North fight? His answer is in the volume’s first sentence: “The loyal American citizenry fought a war for Union that also killed slavery.” This fast-paced review of the controversies that civil war historians have been arguing about is opinionated, well-informed, provocative and just the thing any American history buff needs to read this spring as our country gears up for the sesquicentennial of the conflict that made the United States begin to live up to the Declaration’s words that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
February 6, 2016
Prof. Gallagher is certainly one of the foremost experts on the Civil War, and this book certainly does nothing to tarnish that reputation.
Gallagher makes a compelling argument for preservation of the Union as the primary goal of the North throughout the war, cutting through 150 years of hindsight and rationalization claiming that slavery was the main driving force for the Federal government and armies.
While slavery certainly became a factor along the way, Gallagher uses diaries, journal entries and letters from soldiers, generals, politicians and observers who make the case that the abolishing of slavery was far from the minds of most participants in the war.
Highly recommended, especially for Civil War buffs!
Gallagher makes a compelling argument for preservation of the Union as the primary goal of the North throughout the war, cutting through 150 years of hindsight and rationalization claiming that slavery was the main driving force for the Federal government and armies.
While slavery certainly became a factor along the way, Gallagher uses diaries, journal entries and letters from soldiers, generals, politicians and observers who make the case that the abolishing of slavery was far from the minds of most participants in the war.
Highly recommended, especially for Civil War buffs!
April 28, 2013
Gallagher makes a convincing point within his book that the Civil War in the minds of most of the Union, was fought over the preservation of the Union rather than emancipation. While I did appreciate Gallagher's argument, the book read like an instructions manual for a piece of IKEA furniture. And like all things IKEA, when I was done with the book, I felt as though there was something major missing. Aside from the generally sleepy tone used by Gallagher throughout the book, he neglects to address the issue of what union is and the broader contexts of that term. Overall the book was okay, but nothing to write home about.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews