What do you think?
Rate this book
Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America
William C. Davis, one of America's best Civil War historians, here offers a definitive portrait of the Confederacy unlike any that has come before. Drawing on decades of writing and research among an unprecedented number of archives, Look Away! tells the story of the Confederate States of America not simply as a military saga (although it is that), but rather as a full portrait of a society and incipient nation. The first history of the Confederacy in decades, the culmination of a great scholar's career, Look Away! combines politics, economics, and social history to set a new standard for its subject.
Previous histories have focused on familiar commanders such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, but Davis's canvas is much broader. From firebrand politicians like Robert Barnwell Rhett and William L. Yancey, who pushed for secession long before the public supported it; to Dr. Samuel Cartwright, who persuaded many Southerners of the natural inferiority of their slaves; to the women of Richmond, who rioted over bread shortages in 1863, Davis presents a rich new face of the Confederate nation. He recounts familiar stories of battles won and lost, but also little-known economic stories of a desperate government that socialized the salt industry, home-front stories of the rangers and marauders who preyed on their fellow Confederates, and an account of the steady breakdown of law, culminating in near anarchy in some states. Never has the Confederacy been so vividly brought to life as a full society, riven with political and economic conflicts beneath its more loudly publicized military battles.
Davis's astonishingly thorough primary research has ranged across the 800-odd newspapers that were in operation during the war, but also across the personal papers of over a hundred Southern leaders and ordinary citizens. He quotes from letters and diaries throughout the narrative, revealing the Confederacy through the words of the Confederates themselves. Like any society, especially in the early stages of nation-building and the devastating stages of warfare, the Confederacy was not one thing but many things to many people. One thing, however, was shared by all: the belief that the South offered a necessary evolution of American democracy. Look Away! offers a dramatic and definitive account of one of America's most searing episodes.
Previous histories have focused on familiar commanders such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, but Davis's canvas is much broader. From firebrand politicians like Robert Barnwell Rhett and William L. Yancey, who pushed for secession long before the public supported it; to Dr. Samuel Cartwright, who persuaded many Southerners of the natural inferiority of their slaves; to the women of Richmond, who rioted over bread shortages in 1863, Davis presents a rich new face of the Confederate nation. He recounts familiar stories of battles won and lost, but also little-known economic stories of a desperate government that socialized the salt industry, home-front stories of the rangers and marauders who preyed on their fellow Confederates, and an account of the steady breakdown of law, culminating in near anarchy in some states. Never has the Confederacy been so vividly brought to life as a full society, riven with political and economic conflicts beneath its more loudly publicized military battles.
Davis's astonishingly thorough primary research has ranged across the 800-odd newspapers that were in operation during the war, but also across the personal papers of over a hundred Southern leaders and ordinary citizens. He quotes from letters and diaries throughout the narrative, revealing the Confederacy through the words of the Confederates themselves. Like any society, especially in the early stages of nation-building and the devastating stages of warfare, the Confederacy was not one thing but many things to many people. One thing, however, was shared by all: the belief that the South offered a necessary evolution of American democracy. Look Away! offers a dramatic and definitive account of one of America's most searing episodes.
484 pages, Hardcover
Published April 2, 2002
40 people are currently reading
741 people want to read
About the author
William C. Davis
320 books94 followersCurrently professor of history at Virginia Tech, William C. Davis has written over fifty books, most about the American Civil War. He has won the Jefferson Davis Prize for southern history three times, the Jules F. Landry Award for Southern history once, and has been twice nominated for the Pulitzer Prize.
For several years, he was the editor of the magazine Civil War Times Illustrated. He has also served as a consultant on the A&E television series Civil War Journal.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
For several years, he was the editor of the magazine Civil War Times Illustrated. He has also served as a consultant on the A&E television series Civil War Journal.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
April 10, 2025
A fascinating premise, though I have to admit this book was far more dry and dense and academic than I expected. It doesn’t tell the story of the Confederate States of America so much as it imparts a whole lot of information about it. I wrestled with how to rate it, before settling on a strong three stars, in recognition of the fact that I came away having learned more than I knew before I started, but I can’t say I always enjoyed the experience of reading it - and isn’t that an important part of why you read a book in the first place?
The book begins with an engaging preface that contains a surprising twist, which seemed a promising start. The first chapter then begins with a dense recounting of the entire history of human governance, which somewhat deflated my high hopes. From there, we get into the creation of the Confederate government, which is where it really appeared things were finally getting into a groove.
Most histories of the Civil War era describe the southern states’ secession, the attack on Fort Sumter, and the commencement of the war - and somewhere in there, the Confederate States of America was created, seemingly as an afterthought. Here, it’s the main focus. Davis likens the process of setting up a government and a nation from scratch as “an historic reprise of the Continental Congress, when sovereign states in rebellion against a large and powerful foe needed to form a confederacy in a hurry.”
Except, of course, there were key differences. First among them was the issue of slavery. The Continental Congress was forced to make compromises over slavery, while its Confederate counterpart did the opposite - so much so, that the most ardent supporters of slavery wanted the Confederate Constitution to mandate slavery’s permanent legality, to require any future states to adopt it, and expel states that ever outlawed it. While others sought to minimize slavery for appearance’s sake, and to help win international support and recognition for their nascent country, the Constitution nevertheless was designed to “preserve the sovereignty of the states in everything save slavery” - the one immutable element of the new nation that was not up for debate.
Davis makes his position clear in emphasizing slavery's prominence in the creation of the C.S.A. While many Southerners argued that slavery was “not the cause of secession” but “merely the catalyst,” Davis points out that Southern loyalty to the Union had always been conditional, contingent on the protection of their right to hold property in slaves. When they felt that right was threatened, that’s what precipitated secession. So the Lost Cause/states’ rights argument isn’t given much affirmation here.
The convention to create a provisional Constitution is well-described, as delegates go line-by-line through the U.S. Constitution to make tweaks and changes to what they thought the Founding Fathers didn’t get quite right. All the while, Davis notes, ardent secessionist “hotheads almost looked forward to a confrontation with the North that might follow.” And even though the South fired the first shots, they rationalized that the North had really started the war by refusing to evacuate Fort Sumter.
Once the war starts, the book takes a turn, from the chronological look at the creation of the country, to a more thematic approach, which to me is where it lost much of its momentum. Chapters focus on everything from civilian life, to the role of slavery in society, to the rule of law, to business and commerce. Hundreds of pages of anecdotes and sometimes-numbing details can ultimately be distilled into one main point - the dream of a loose, decentralized government proved impossible to realize during a time of war. “Their ideals could not live with the realities,” Davis writes.
This point is most often made in other histories of the era when it comes to how the war was prosecuted - the national government’s need to raise an army could often conflict with states’ reluctance to provide troops to fight in and protect other states. Davis provides other examples, though, most interestingly when it comes to something as seemingly banal as salt - competition for the resource between the army and civilians led the government to take control of the salt industry, in direct contrast to the Confederacy’s more laissez-faire ideals. “War,” Davis writes, “is the surest enemy of democracy.” And while, to be sure, life went on seemingly as normal in some places, the South as a whole was much more consumed by the war than the North, where the war could often seem a far-off concern that did nothing to disrupt daily life.
The war itself largely takes place offstage, described in brief chapters that serve as interludes throughout the book. But these interludes are told chronologically, placed between chapters that don’t otherwise proceed chronologically, so I’m not sure this structure necessarily worked, or if these descriptions of battlefield events needed to be included at all.
The final chapters finally circle back to the national government, placing some of the blame for the failure of the Confederate government on President Jefferson Davis himself. Factionalism and infighting complicated what political leaders had hoped would be a “one-party system” of government, while Davis himself “did not have the personality to win adherents.” And as the war neared its end, it was Davis who seemingly refused to face reality in wanting to keep up the fight - while Southerners could conceivably have continued to fight, guerrilla-style, the reality was they no longer had a functioning country to defend.
(Interestingly, for all the dysfunction in the Confederate government, Postmaster General John Reagan is referenced several times and comes across as a rare success - competently and efficiently managing the Confederate mail system at a time when not much else seemed to be run competently and efficiently.)
His main points having been made throughout the book, Davis does little at the end to summarize why the Confederate government failed. Instead, he concludes with the observation that the war didn’t really change Southern culture and attitudes - they rejoined the Union as resisters, making one wonder whether the war accomplished anything at all. Of course, it must be said, the fact that the war ended slavery is certainly no small feat.
So in the end, this book is the result of some impressive research and imparts important information. But I didn’t think it flowed very well as a readable narrative, and its important points can often get obscured in minutiae. It’s rather like a series of essays on individual themes, that don’t necessarily come together to form a cohesive whole with an overarching conclusion. I am more knowledgeable for having stuck with it, I only wish I could say the destination was fully worth the journey.
The book begins with an engaging preface that contains a surprising twist, which seemed a promising start. The first chapter then begins with a dense recounting of the entire history of human governance, which somewhat deflated my high hopes. From there, we get into the creation of the Confederate government, which is where it really appeared things were finally getting into a groove.
Most histories of the Civil War era describe the southern states’ secession, the attack on Fort Sumter, and the commencement of the war - and somewhere in there, the Confederate States of America was created, seemingly as an afterthought. Here, it’s the main focus. Davis likens the process of setting up a government and a nation from scratch as “an historic reprise of the Continental Congress, when sovereign states in rebellion against a large and powerful foe needed to form a confederacy in a hurry.”
Except, of course, there were key differences. First among them was the issue of slavery. The Continental Congress was forced to make compromises over slavery, while its Confederate counterpart did the opposite - so much so, that the most ardent supporters of slavery wanted the Confederate Constitution to mandate slavery’s permanent legality, to require any future states to adopt it, and expel states that ever outlawed it. While others sought to minimize slavery for appearance’s sake, and to help win international support and recognition for their nascent country, the Constitution nevertheless was designed to “preserve the sovereignty of the states in everything save slavery” - the one immutable element of the new nation that was not up for debate.
Davis makes his position clear in emphasizing slavery's prominence in the creation of the C.S.A. While many Southerners argued that slavery was “not the cause of secession” but “merely the catalyst,” Davis points out that Southern loyalty to the Union had always been conditional, contingent on the protection of their right to hold property in slaves. When they felt that right was threatened, that’s what precipitated secession. So the Lost Cause/states’ rights argument isn’t given much affirmation here.
The convention to create a provisional Constitution is well-described, as delegates go line-by-line through the U.S. Constitution to make tweaks and changes to what they thought the Founding Fathers didn’t get quite right. All the while, Davis notes, ardent secessionist “hotheads almost looked forward to a confrontation with the North that might follow.” And even though the South fired the first shots, they rationalized that the North had really started the war by refusing to evacuate Fort Sumter.
Once the war starts, the book takes a turn, from the chronological look at the creation of the country, to a more thematic approach, which to me is where it lost much of its momentum. Chapters focus on everything from civilian life, to the role of slavery in society, to the rule of law, to business and commerce. Hundreds of pages of anecdotes and sometimes-numbing details can ultimately be distilled into one main point - the dream of a loose, decentralized government proved impossible to realize during a time of war. “Their ideals could not live with the realities,” Davis writes.
This point is most often made in other histories of the era when it comes to how the war was prosecuted - the national government’s need to raise an army could often conflict with states’ reluctance to provide troops to fight in and protect other states. Davis provides other examples, though, most interestingly when it comes to something as seemingly banal as salt - competition for the resource between the army and civilians led the government to take control of the salt industry, in direct contrast to the Confederacy’s more laissez-faire ideals. “War,” Davis writes, “is the surest enemy of democracy.” And while, to be sure, life went on seemingly as normal in some places, the South as a whole was much more consumed by the war than the North, where the war could often seem a far-off concern that did nothing to disrupt daily life.
The war itself largely takes place offstage, described in brief chapters that serve as interludes throughout the book. But these interludes are told chronologically, placed between chapters that don’t otherwise proceed chronologically, so I’m not sure this structure necessarily worked, or if these descriptions of battlefield events needed to be included at all.
The final chapters finally circle back to the national government, placing some of the blame for the failure of the Confederate government on President Jefferson Davis himself. Factionalism and infighting complicated what political leaders had hoped would be a “one-party system” of government, while Davis himself “did not have the personality to win adherents.” And as the war neared its end, it was Davis who seemingly refused to face reality in wanting to keep up the fight - while Southerners could conceivably have continued to fight, guerrilla-style, the reality was they no longer had a functioning country to defend.
(Interestingly, for all the dysfunction in the Confederate government, Postmaster General John Reagan is referenced several times and comes across as a rare success - competently and efficiently managing the Confederate mail system at a time when not much else seemed to be run competently and efficiently.)
His main points having been made throughout the book, Davis does little at the end to summarize why the Confederate government failed. Instead, he concludes with the observation that the war didn’t really change Southern culture and attitudes - they rejoined the Union as resisters, making one wonder whether the war accomplished anything at all. Of course, it must be said, the fact that the war ended slavery is certainly no small feat.
So in the end, this book is the result of some impressive research and imparts important information. But I didn’t think it flowed very well as a readable narrative, and its important points can often get obscured in minutiae. It’s rather like a series of essays on individual themes, that don’t necessarily come together to form a cohesive whole with an overarching conclusion. I am more knowledgeable for having stuck with it, I only wish I could say the destination was fully worth the journey.
March 23, 2011
Most histories of the American Civil War are very heavily skewed towards the Northern point of view, particularly in terms of the behind-the-scenes political machinations and general governance of the war. That makes this book all the more interesting since a lot of the information about the politics and debates and discussions within the South about secession was completely new to me, and it was refreshing to see the alternative point-of-view from the usual Lincoln/Washington/North/abolition standpoint.
One thing Davis is very clear on is his position on the reasons behind the war. It seems to be fashionable these days to downplay the role of slavery in the secession movement; to insist that whilst it may have been the catalyst, it wasn't the cause; to argue that slavery was simply the most visible of the arguments, but that the real reason was States' Rights. Davis really delves into a lot of the resolutions and conventions and paperwork and makes it clear that slavery was front and centre, so much so that it was hardwired into the new Confederate Constitution and not even the President or the individual States had the authority to abolish it, even if they wished to.
This book also brings to the forefront just how much of a contradiction the Confederacy really was. He argues that the slavery/planting oligarchy was the driving force behind seccession and that the entire Confederacy was designed by these very same people to benefit them above all others; it was designed as a democracy that limited the power of the vast majority of the population in favour of a small minority. The war also meant that in its conduct of the war the national government proceeded to trample over many of the rights and privileges that had only just been enshrined in the Constitution, the same rights and privileges that impelled many of the States to leave the Union in the first place!
It's a very well-written book, readable and engaging, and absolutely fascinating to read. I'd never before realised just how contradictory the Confederacy was and how doomed it really was from the start.
One thing Davis is very clear on is his position on the reasons behind the war. It seems to be fashionable these days to downplay the role of slavery in the secession movement; to insist that whilst it may have been the catalyst, it wasn't the cause; to argue that slavery was simply the most visible of the arguments, but that the real reason was States' Rights. Davis really delves into a lot of the resolutions and conventions and paperwork and makes it clear that slavery was front and centre, so much so that it was hardwired into the new Confederate Constitution and not even the President or the individual States had the authority to abolish it, even if they wished to.
This book also brings to the forefront just how much of a contradiction the Confederacy really was. He argues that the slavery/planting oligarchy was the driving force behind seccession and that the entire Confederacy was designed by these very same people to benefit them above all others; it was designed as a democracy that limited the power of the vast majority of the population in favour of a small minority. The war also meant that in its conduct of the war the national government proceeded to trample over many of the rights and privileges that had only just been enshrined in the Constitution, the same rights and privileges that impelled many of the States to leave the Union in the first place!
It's a very well-written book, readable and engaging, and absolutely fascinating to read. I'd never before realised just how contradictory the Confederacy was and how doomed it really was from the start.
December 4, 2017
This book is a must-read for so many of us who don't really know what the Confederacy was about, or what it stood for. I know many people have a vested interest in making light of slavery, and making excuses for the Confederacy.
I picked up this book figuring that there must be some positive reforms that came out of the Confederacy, but as Davis tells it, the founders were selfish hypocritical rationalizers. The Confederacy really was all about instituting a class of aristocrats to rule over the poor whites and oppressing the blacks. The book is at its best when it deals with race issues, and the incredible lengths Confederates would go to justify their “peculiar institution”. Despite their protests to the contrary, ultimately the South was fighting for principles that were unworkable, untenable, and even immoral, and so their cause was doomed from the start.
I picked up this book figuring that there must be some positive reforms that came out of the Confederacy, but as Davis tells it, the founders were selfish hypocritical rationalizers. The Confederacy really was all about instituting a class of aristocrats to rule over the poor whites and oppressing the blacks. The book is at its best when it deals with race issues, and the incredible lengths Confederates would go to justify their “peculiar institution”. Despite their protests to the contrary, ultimately the South was fighting for principles that were unworkable, untenable, and even immoral, and so their cause was doomed from the start.
August 27, 2007
I was a bit disappointed in this book, I bought it expecting a civil and social history of the CSA told in a somewhat chronological manner, i.e as a story. Indeed, the book stats out that way, telling the story of secession and the formation of the provisional government in Mobile, but then just as as the move to Richmond is taking place (and getting really interesting to a Virginian), the author changes style and for the rest of the book each chapter covers. The topics and their coverage, which goes into excruciating detail, revolves around the authors central premise that Confederate democracy as born in Mobile and conceived to maintain the slave-holders oligarchy was nothing more than a farce due to the inability to maintain social order and the need for socialization to maintain the war effort. Virginia, is all but ignored, i suspect because there was too much social order to fit the authors premise, so to say the least i was a little upset. The book is well researched and does present some interesting facts and points, I found the chapter on salt and cotton and spirits nationalization particularly interesting, but overall I am glad to have finished the book finally.
October 23, 2009
Well known historian of the Civil War, William Davis, has written a nicely done political history of the Confederate States of America. While, as the author notes (page ix), "The campaigns and battles are here," the main thrust of the book is (page x) ". . .seeks to present a comprehensive view of everything else that went into making the Confederate national experience. . . ."
There is a useful discussion early on of the nature of the Confederate Constitution. My own sense is that this could have been developed better, placing that document in a larger context. Nonetheless, one comes away from the discussion with a reasonable view of the nature of that document--and with an understanding of the importance of slavery for the south.
There is good exposition of the variety of internecine conflicts among the leaders of the Confederacy. President Jefferson Davis' prickly personality scarcely helped out here.
Davis also does a serviceable job of discussing the political economy of the south, from its economic base to the challenges facing its economy as the Civil War unfolded.
All in all, a useful book.
There is a useful discussion early on of the nature of the Confederate Constitution. My own sense is that this could have been developed better, placing that document in a larger context. Nonetheless, one comes away from the discussion with a reasonable view of the nature of that document--and with an understanding of the importance of slavery for the south.
There is good exposition of the variety of internecine conflicts among the leaders of the Confederacy. President Jefferson Davis' prickly personality scarcely helped out here.
Davis also does a serviceable job of discussing the political economy of the south, from its economic base to the challenges facing its economy as the Civil War unfolded.
All in all, a useful book.
December 31, 2010
Northerners, you won't truly know the South until you read this book!
The Civil War continues to shape our culture and society event today. To really appreciate your American heritage, you must learn it from various perspectives. America has no single culture, but rather has several amazing legacies. This is a wonderful look at one of them.
The Civil War continues to shape our culture and society event today. To really appreciate your American heritage, you must learn it from various perspectives. America has no single culture, but rather has several amazing legacies. This is a wonderful look at one of them.
August 12, 2011
A superb book, well researched, written, and argued. Read it with Vandiver's "Their Tattered Flags" to get another perspective.
May 1, 2024
This book discusses the Civil War and Confederacy through the lens of the Confederates. This is a slightly different approach than I typically go for, but I do believe in the importance of understanding all sides of an issue so that the historical record is complete and sensible. The author referenced several interviews and newspaper articles from the period, so that was very insightful. It also shows that the Southern states were not as united as they appeared to be, with instances of crime and disagreements becoming frequent. If you are interested in the Civil War era, I would suggest picking up this book.
This book had been in my wish list for a while, and I caught it while it was still available on Audible Plus. I love that I saved a credit to use on something else. The audio version is around 22 hours to listen to, so I listened over the course of several nights. If you are interested in a physical copy, it is fairly thick, at 500 pages. The author of this book is a well-respected Civil War historian, and this book was recommended to me by The Tattooed Historian on Instagram, who is also a civil war historian and reenactor. I found this book to be well researched, and filled with details. I always enjoy knowing where the places discussed in books are located, and that tends to happen with any type of Civil War book with my living in Chattanooga. I actually really enjoyed this book, despite my thin interest in this topic.
This book had been in my wish list for a while, and I caught it while it was still available on Audible Plus. I love that I saved a credit to use on something else. The audio version is around 22 hours to listen to, so I listened over the course of several nights. If you are interested in a physical copy, it is fairly thick, at 500 pages. The author of this book is a well-respected Civil War historian, and this book was recommended to me by The Tattooed Historian on Instagram, who is also a civil war historian and reenactor. I found this book to be well researched, and filled with details. I always enjoy knowing where the places discussed in books are located, and that tends to happen with any type of Civil War book with my living in Chattanooga. I actually really enjoyed this book, despite my thin interest in this topic.
December 23, 2021
This is a big, 428-page book with a small font so reading this is not something to be accomplished overnight. Each reader is likely to recall or take away something unique for his or her reading. I came away with a view of the Confederacy as a racist would-be oligarchy lucky to have existed four years under the miserable conditions inflicted by its policies and lack of resources, the major torment being conscription of what few resources there were. It wasn’t just a draft of manpower, but of any resource: food, transportation, raw materials, and whatever else you have which the government agents decide is necessary for the Cause. Despite what Bubba on the loading dock may like to believe, the only thing Dixie had going for it was the Army of Northern Virginia and that wasn’t nearly enough. There is a lot of information here and many, many supporting examples. Get ready for much more than just battles n’ leaders.
February 26, 2014
While most Civil War histories concentrate on military campaigns, Look Away! chronicles the history of the Confederacy from a political and social perspective. Its attempt to ignore military matters is almost futile given that the Confederacy was born in war and perished amid it, as its every institution (civic, social, economic) was ravaged by the war and driven into failure. The story of Look Away is one of a doomed nation, riven in contradiction from the start. Examining the feuds between the southern Congress and its president, the implosion of slavery, the breakdown of law and order, the trials of women and economic woes, it looks at the southern nation that lay behind the battlefront. Though I initially avoided reading this on suspicion that it was the work of neo-Confederate ideology (I've seen it sold beside titles like The South was Right!), it proved appropriately moderate, neither overtly friendly nor hostile -- not that its presentation of slavery as the driving force of the war pleased the sputtering reviewer who announced that Gone with the Wind was a superior text to consult.
Davis begins with the crisis leading to the secession of the southern states, and their gathering together to create a new constitution. The form of their confederate government makes plain slavery's role as a cause of the war; even if one ignores all of the defensive rhetoric from the time, the fact that no Confederate state could ever dispense with slavery within its borders has challenges the "states' rights" crowd who maintain slavery was incidental. The southerners attempted to create a modified version of the US Constitution which emphasized the sovereignty of the individual states, but the stresses of war would the dream.
Attempting to forge a nation from scratch in the midst of a war is no easy feat; while the Continental Congress accomplished it, their task was somewhat easier. Their foes was an ocean away, its resources and attention scattered, its means of communication and transport largely the same as in the days of William the Conqueror. The north and south, however, were intimate neighbors with intertwined borders: both could and would field armies in the hundreds of thousands, supported by the best of modern technology -- trains, telegraphs, and a robust factory system. The war would be total from the beginning, as Davis' account bears out.
His examination of the home front demonstrates how widespread military enlistment and conscription led to much of society simply failing apart for want of the men needed to maintain it. Not only were civil servants like postmen, peace officers, and the like taken, but so many men were absent either through enlistment or conscription that the farms were left undermanned and vulnerable not only to slave insurrections but raids from bands of highwaymen and deserters.
Complicating matters from the start was the divided political sentiment of the southrons who, though avowing agrarian democracy and political liberty, were led by a plantation elite jealous of their own power and dependent on slavery. The Confederacy was an oligarchy in the form of a democracy, Davis writes, and as the war continued the form of democracy wore off. Civil order collapsed, leaving parts of the south running on martial law, naked power, and the government proved no less dangerous to struggling farmers than raids as it began seizing crops as quickly as they could be grown. Not only was the army of little use in countering the violence of highwaymen, beset on all sides by the Union force, but the state it served had become an agent of abuse itself. The best of the south's political class had fled Congress for the Army (war being less distasteful than the tenor of debate), leaving the government in the hands of woefully inferior personalities who were only too happy to spend their time bickering while Rome burned, and corrupted by all of the power coalescing in their hands. The longer the war wore on, the more power Richmond collected; not only through self-willed expansion, but by people depending on it as a last resort. The Confederacy, having begun as a decentralized confederacy, was by war's end a welfare state; an astonishing journey that only war could taken a nation.
Although it offers brief military recaps to give readers an idea for the general course of the war, Look Away! is first and foremost a history of the southern country at home as it attempted to be a people and a nation at war. Not only does it offer readers a view of the chaos that the average family would have been enduring through the war years, it imparts an understanding of the Confederate government far different from the one which exists in popular myth. It's a grimmer view, but one softened by the fact that Davis is plainly sympathetic to his subjects. Look Away should definitely be of interest to anyone fascinated by the Civil War or southern politics.
Related:
Bitterly Divided: The South's Inner Civil War, David Williams
Davis begins with the crisis leading to the secession of the southern states, and their gathering together to create a new constitution. The form of their confederate government makes plain slavery's role as a cause of the war; even if one ignores all of the defensive rhetoric from the time, the fact that no Confederate state could ever dispense with slavery within its borders has challenges the "states' rights" crowd who maintain slavery was incidental. The southerners attempted to create a modified version of the US Constitution which emphasized the sovereignty of the individual states, but the stresses of war would the dream.
Attempting to forge a nation from scratch in the midst of a war is no easy feat; while the Continental Congress accomplished it, their task was somewhat easier. Their foes was an ocean away, its resources and attention scattered, its means of communication and transport largely the same as in the days of William the Conqueror. The north and south, however, were intimate neighbors with intertwined borders: both could and would field armies in the hundreds of thousands, supported by the best of modern technology -- trains, telegraphs, and a robust factory system. The war would be total from the beginning, as Davis' account bears out.
His examination of the home front demonstrates how widespread military enlistment and conscription led to much of society simply failing apart for want of the men needed to maintain it. Not only were civil servants like postmen, peace officers, and the like taken, but so many men were absent either through enlistment or conscription that the farms were left undermanned and vulnerable not only to slave insurrections but raids from bands of highwaymen and deserters.
Complicating matters from the start was the divided political sentiment of the southrons who, though avowing agrarian democracy and political liberty, were led by a plantation elite jealous of their own power and dependent on slavery. The Confederacy was an oligarchy in the form of a democracy, Davis writes, and as the war continued the form of democracy wore off. Civil order collapsed, leaving parts of the south running on martial law, naked power, and the government proved no less dangerous to struggling farmers than raids as it began seizing crops as quickly as they could be grown. Not only was the army of little use in countering the violence of highwaymen, beset on all sides by the Union force, but the state it served had become an agent of abuse itself. The best of the south's political class had fled Congress for the Army (war being less distasteful than the tenor of debate), leaving the government in the hands of woefully inferior personalities who were only too happy to spend their time bickering while Rome burned, and corrupted by all of the power coalescing in their hands. The longer the war wore on, the more power Richmond collected; not only through self-willed expansion, but by people depending on it as a last resort. The Confederacy, having begun as a decentralized confederacy, was by war's end a welfare state; an astonishing journey that only war could taken a nation.
Although it offers brief military recaps to give readers an idea for the general course of the war, Look Away! is first and foremost a history of the southern country at home as it attempted to be a people and a nation at war. Not only does it offer readers a view of the chaos that the average family would have been enduring through the war years, it imparts an understanding of the Confederate government far different from the one which exists in popular myth. It's a grimmer view, but one softened by the fact that Davis is plainly sympathetic to his subjects. Look Away should definitely be of interest to anyone fascinated by the Civil War or southern politics.
Related:
Bitterly Divided: The South's Inner Civil War, David Williams
October 26, 2017
After collecting dust for more than a year on my shelf, I decided it was finally time for this book to get my attention. At first, It looked quite promising. After reading dozens of books dealing only with the military aspect of the Confederacy, Look Away! appeared to provide a fresh new point of view giving the opportunity to learn about some aspects of the C.S.A. history often overlooked: the life outside the battlefields, and how to run a rogue nation engaged in a desperate war for its independence.
The first few chapters are indeed extremely interesting, presenting the birth of the new "nation", the strong personalities behind its creation and their unbounded naivety. Although the founding fathers were already deeply divided on many important issues since their very first meeting in Montgomery, removal of political animosity was nothing but their assumed goal. The clash between their struggle for unity and their burning desire to self-promotion is admirably told in a narrative fashion that flows seamlessly. Had the book been as well written until the end, it'd have deserved a solid four stars rating.
As soon as Jefferson Davis and his cabinet move to Richmond, the author switches from the narrative style to the less entertaining, but sometimes as interesting, theme-oriented chapters. However from this point, and until the end, the book is a major let down.
Instead of developing clear subjects, the text is nothing but an accumulation of random (and extremely detailed) topics brought there with no justification whatsoever, and devoid of even the most basic form of chronology. Get ready to jump from 1861, to 62, then to 61 again, then to 65 etc. The text is so bogged down with its own total lack of structure, that the reader is left in a permanent state of confusion. Moreover, you'll read several times the same thing, as the same subject can be heavily detailed in a chapter, then brought back to the reader a second time one hundred pages later. I've counted at least four quotes from letters, or diaries, that are used word for word at least twice in completely different chapters.
Worse, the topic choice is so random, that some minor events or information can be detailed on ten pages, while major elements may sometimes be only briefly mentioned, if not completely absent of the text. The subject of the Unionists desire to "secede from the Confederacy" all around the South is fairly treated, yet not a single word is written about West Virginia, the only attempt of this kind that actually succeeded!
Oddly enough, even though the book doesn't provide any structure at all for the reader, the author fought judicious to write every four chapters or so a brief sum up of the war in a chronological fashion. While these short chapters are quite well written, they feel completely out of place in a book that doesn't respect chronology. What the point of explaining to your reader what happened at Appomatox Courthouse is you have already mentioned the surrender of Lee something like ten times before?
One last point, but not the least, the author (like so many American historian) doesn't seem to be an expert in the field of European history. It can be forgiven, but not when big factual errors impair the quality of the analysis. Napoleon III the nephew of Maximilian of Mexico? It's as close to the truth as to say that Abraham Lincoln was Queen Victoria's brother!
Anyway, the book is far from a total disaster. The beginning is very good, and some chapters are way, way better than others. Especially interesting is the author when he writes about slavery, Unionism in Texas and the giant difference between what the "Secech" wanted, and what actually happened. In fact, no subject covered in the book is fundamentally uninteresting. The problem lay in the terribly confusing structure of the book and the seriously unbalanced coverage.
But in the end, the book was a disappointment. I recommend it for the academic historian, or the Civil War buff who is already very knowledgeable and craves to learn more about little-covered subject like law practice in the South during the war etc.
2.7/5
The first few chapters are indeed extremely interesting, presenting the birth of the new "nation", the strong personalities behind its creation and their unbounded naivety. Although the founding fathers were already deeply divided on many important issues since their very first meeting in Montgomery, removal of political animosity was nothing but their assumed goal. The clash between their struggle for unity and their burning desire to self-promotion is admirably told in a narrative fashion that flows seamlessly. Had the book been as well written until the end, it'd have deserved a solid four stars rating.
As soon as Jefferson Davis and his cabinet move to Richmond, the author switches from the narrative style to the less entertaining, but sometimes as interesting, theme-oriented chapters. However from this point, and until the end, the book is a major let down.
Instead of developing clear subjects, the text is nothing but an accumulation of random (and extremely detailed) topics brought there with no justification whatsoever, and devoid of even the most basic form of chronology. Get ready to jump from 1861, to 62, then to 61 again, then to 65 etc. The text is so bogged down with its own total lack of structure, that the reader is left in a permanent state of confusion. Moreover, you'll read several times the same thing, as the same subject can be heavily detailed in a chapter, then brought back to the reader a second time one hundred pages later. I've counted at least four quotes from letters, or diaries, that are used word for word at least twice in completely different chapters.
Worse, the topic choice is so random, that some minor events or information can be detailed on ten pages, while major elements may sometimes be only briefly mentioned, if not completely absent of the text. The subject of the Unionists desire to "secede from the Confederacy" all around the South is fairly treated, yet not a single word is written about West Virginia, the only attempt of this kind that actually succeeded!
Oddly enough, even though the book doesn't provide any structure at all for the reader, the author fought judicious to write every four chapters or so a brief sum up of the war in a chronological fashion. While these short chapters are quite well written, they feel completely out of place in a book that doesn't respect chronology. What the point of explaining to your reader what happened at Appomatox Courthouse is you have already mentioned the surrender of Lee something like ten times before?
One last point, but not the least, the author (like so many American historian) doesn't seem to be an expert in the field of European history. It can be forgiven, but not when big factual errors impair the quality of the analysis. Napoleon III the nephew of Maximilian of Mexico? It's as close to the truth as to say that Abraham Lincoln was Queen Victoria's brother!
Anyway, the book is far from a total disaster. The beginning is very good, and some chapters are way, way better than others. Especially interesting is the author when he writes about slavery, Unionism in Texas and the giant difference between what the "Secech" wanted, and what actually happened. In fact, no subject covered in the book is fundamentally uninteresting. The problem lay in the terribly confusing structure of the book and the seriously unbalanced coverage.
But in the end, the book was a disappointment. I recommend it for the academic historian, or the Civil War buff who is already very knowledgeable and craves to learn more about little-covered subject like law practice in the South during the war etc.
2.7/5
June 2, 2024
From beginning to end, Look Away! covers the secession movement, its birth of the Confederacy, and its final destruction at the end of the Civil War. I admit to not knowing a GREAT amount of detail about the Confederacy, and after I finished this audiobook, I feel as though it’s kind of surprising that it lasted as long as it did.
The Confederacy was plagued with issues from the jump. Men in power jockeyed with each other, unwilling to cede leadership roles to others and disagreeing on various stances with regards to the formation of their new country as well as how strongly pro-slavery each of their states would be. Then when the war started, they conscripted basically everyone in sight and were thus unable to, for example, get much needed salt for preservation, or ship things on the railroad. Inflation ran rampant and embargoes on what could be grown or sold lead to families at home facing desperate hunger in the absence of their husbands while some men speculated products at their expense. That’s not even accounting for the men fighting who often didn’t get furloughs, nor how the government tried to snatch up literal children to use as soldiers and took school supplies from disabled children for their army.
The subject matter is obviously interesting, and clearly well-researched, but the reason I can’t rate it higher is the author’s tendency to jump back and forth between topics. The movement of months and years, forward and backward, starts to get confusing, and there is also a tendency toward repetition which doesn’t help matters. Add in an absolute onslaught of people and it can be quite murky to wade through. Still! It was very informative, and shows that the Confederacy was floundering almost from the start.
The Confederacy was plagued with issues from the jump. Men in power jockeyed with each other, unwilling to cede leadership roles to others and disagreeing on various stances with regards to the formation of their new country as well as how strongly pro-slavery each of their states would be. Then when the war started, they conscripted basically everyone in sight and were thus unable to, for example, get much needed salt for preservation, or ship things on the railroad. Inflation ran rampant and embargoes on what could be grown or sold lead to families at home facing desperate hunger in the absence of their husbands while some men speculated products at their expense. That’s not even accounting for the men fighting who often didn’t get furloughs, nor how the government tried to snatch up literal children to use as soldiers and took school supplies from disabled children for their army.
The subject matter is obviously interesting, and clearly well-researched, but the reason I can’t rate it higher is the author’s tendency to jump back and forth between topics. The movement of months and years, forward and backward, starts to get confusing, and there is also a tendency toward repetition which doesn’t help matters. Add in an absolute onslaught of people and it can be quite murky to wade through. Still! It was very informative, and shows that the Confederacy was floundering almost from the start.
May 16, 2017
Generally a good read, but by the end I felt as though each chapter was an essay that had been published elsewhere and then gathered together for this book. Facts and quotes are repeated so many times that I could almost sense them coming. I think this book could have benefited from losing about a hundred pages and just presenting the story chronologically instead of being broken down by subject matter. I'd still recommend Look Away for any serious student of the War Between the States, but not for someone who's just looking for a popular history of the Confederacy.
April 8, 2013
The best book I have read about the Confederacy by an author who is an expert on it.
February 14, 2024
A behind-the-scenes look at the creation of the Confederate government. The February 1861 get-together in Montgomery, Alabama showed how determined the delegates from the seceded states were to patch over their differences so they could set up shop as a separate nation as quickly as possible.
In that respect, they were remarkably successful; unfortunately for their cause, they ended up with a central government at least as powerful as the Government in Washington that they had just repudiated. Combined with the chaos and turmoil of the war, the home front suffered about as much from the arbitrary authority of the Confederacy as from the Yankees.
The author's best chapters come in this formative phase of the Confederacy, and also as the end draws near in 1865. But once the war begins in earnest we have a recurring batch of themes in chapter after chapter. The bands of deserters roaming the countryside, the depredations of corrupt or overwhelmed officials and their minions, the meddling of state governments with the citizens and/or the central government, and, most unexpectedly, the ruthlessness of their own troops are topics thoroughly hashed out, presented as though it were a nonstop disaster throughout the South for four years.
There are examples of efficiency and ingenuity, but, for the most part, the Confederacy, both as a government and a would-be nation, seems a losing proposition from the beginning.
It's not that these insights into the Confederacy's failings aren't of interest, but rather that, taken as a whole, the information lacks focus and immediacy. By contrast, the book's beginning and ending keep us in the moment, with a great deal of narrative description and drama.
A useful book on a rarely analyzed topic, Look Away maybe tells us too little about too many Civil War topics, even as it covers the more obscure events with a great deal of care.
In that respect, they were remarkably successful; unfortunately for their cause, they ended up with a central government at least as powerful as the Government in Washington that they had just repudiated. Combined with the chaos and turmoil of the war, the home front suffered about as much from the arbitrary authority of the Confederacy as from the Yankees.
The author's best chapters come in this formative phase of the Confederacy, and also as the end draws near in 1865. But once the war begins in earnest we have a recurring batch of themes in chapter after chapter. The bands of deserters roaming the countryside, the depredations of corrupt or overwhelmed officials and their minions, the meddling of state governments with the citizens and/or the central government, and, most unexpectedly, the ruthlessness of their own troops are topics thoroughly hashed out, presented as though it were a nonstop disaster throughout the South for four years.
There are examples of efficiency and ingenuity, but, for the most part, the Confederacy, both as a government and a would-be nation, seems a losing proposition from the beginning.
It's not that these insights into the Confederacy's failings aren't of interest, but rather that, taken as a whole, the information lacks focus and immediacy. By contrast, the book's beginning and ending keep us in the moment, with a great deal of narrative description and drama.
A useful book on a rarely analyzed topic, Look Away maybe tells us too little about too many Civil War topics, even as it covers the more obscure events with a great deal of care.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 8, 2024
Davis provides a good, readable account of the Confederacy’s trials. As he states in his introduction, there are countless books covering the military history of the war; his book deals with political, social and economic matters. However, he does provide brief descriptions for each year of the war. What strikes the reader most is that the South had so many internal conflicts. Unionists and anti-conscriptionists formed large bands that often acted with impunity. Ironically, this was partly the result of the draft. So many men were taken into the army that local courts and law enforcement were woefully undermanned. Necessary industries also suffered from the loss of workers to the army.
Davis constantly refers to the oligarchy as controlling Confederate society and government. I assume by oligarchy he means the large planters, and he is correct that they dominated. However, all representative democracies (for he frequently refers to “Confederate democracy”) are governed by oligarchies. The commercial and manufacturing interests – call them capitalists – dominated the North. The yeoman farmer or factory hand had to exist in polities that the oligarchs, North and South, had the most influence in. It is true that the politics of deference was more lasting in the South.
Davis constantly refers to the oligarchy as controlling Confederate society and government. I assume by oligarchy he means the large planters, and he is correct that they dominated. However, all representative democracies (for he frequently refers to “Confederate democracy”) are governed by oligarchies. The commercial and manufacturing interests – call them capitalists – dominated the North. The yeoman farmer or factory hand had to exist in polities that the oligarchs, North and South, had the most influence in. It is true that the politics of deference was more lasting in the South.
November 15, 2025
A structural history of the administrative, economic, and social challenges faced by the Confederate States of America from its inception to its dissolution that serves as a sobering object lesson in the fundamental importance of often unrecognized factors such shared interests, distribution of authority & exposure, diversified economy, and (most importantly) peacetime conditions for the successful establishment of a fledgling democracy. Though the states of the Confederacy adopted a constitution and laws nearly identical to that it had shared with the Union, the social and economic conditions were less amenable to democracy as the power brokers behind secession and formation of the new government were mostly members of an entitled class (plantation owners) that found itself heavily reliant on the exploitation of an essentially dependent class (small farmers) that had no say and only indirect stake in either matter. To make matters worse, a peculiar culture of exaggerated obsession with personal honor among members of this elite class all but guaranteed failure to establish clear lines of authority and accountability given the tendency of each to demand accountability but disregard the authority of any other--with the underclass left to suffer the consequences.
November 23, 2025
This book is not for the passing or casual interest and rather appeals to only the nuttiest of history buffs. The work is not one looking to inform the casual reader of a general anthropological idea of what the southern confederacy was like. Rather, it is an incredibly arduous and in-depth look at specific policies, smaller actors and repercussions of the two. It does not focus on military strategy really at all, in fact, military accounts are hardly mentioned at all. This is a history of the actual confederacy. Not of Jefferson Davis or General Lee or even John C. Breckenridge, it is a history of the confederacy as a whole and life within it and how it tried to adapt to the various stages of the struggle. This is an incredibly well written book but it is an academic book for sure, one I would highly recommend to someone looking to write a paper or further an already incredible knowledge of the subject, but for someone who wants to fill in some gaps in their knowledge and be entertained by stories and impressive deeds, I would recommend you look elsewhere. It is utterly brilliant for what it is. I found the reading of this book somewhat arduous not because it was bad but because it was not what I expected but I am glad I read it nonetheless.
January 25, 2023
This is not a history of the Civil War. The only military history in the book is that necessary to give context. Rather, this is a social and political history of the Confederacy, rich in detail, mined mostly from primary sources. It's been a long time since I read Emory Thomas' The Confederate Nation but my recollection of that book is that its theme was how rapidly, pervasively, and improbably Confederate nationalism came to exist. The principal takeaways from Davis' book are much different. The story he tells is characterized by dissension, factionalism, internal unrest, resistance, and rebellion. It's an interesting history, largely unknown I think, even among buffs.
At times it seemed to me that the author was not as detached from his subject as an historian should be, but not to the point of being misleading. The text which is commentary, as opposed to history, is readily recognizable.
At times it seemed to me that the author was not as detached from his subject as an historian should be, but not to the point of being misleading. The text which is commentary, as opposed to history, is readily recognizable.
November 10, 2021
This book offers an interesting perspective. The choice to proceed thematically works well.
A major theme turns out to be what an oxymoron “libertarian government” is.
My one reservation is that the author frequently adopts the Confederacy’s own language without subjecting it to scrutiny. Nowhere is this more clear than in the use of the term ‘tory’ for those who remained loyal to the United States. But there’s also ‘submissionist’ as the opposite of secessionist, and numerous other instances, though he at least appreciates the perversity of enslavers claiming that somehow any limits on their own powers of oppression caused them to suffer slavery.
British Prime Minister Gladstone famously credited the Confederate leaders with making a nation, but an author describing their failure at this should not simultaneously accept their language claiming it.
A major theme turns out to be what an oxymoron “libertarian government” is.
My one reservation is that the author frequently adopts the Confederacy’s own language without subjecting it to scrutiny. Nowhere is this more clear than in the use of the term ‘tory’ for those who remained loyal to the United States. But there’s also ‘submissionist’ as the opposite of secessionist, and numerous other instances, though he at least appreciates the perversity of enslavers claiming that somehow any limits on their own powers of oppression caused them to suffer slavery.
British Prime Minister Gladstone famously credited the Confederate leaders with making a nation, but an author describing their failure at this should not simultaneously accept their language claiming it.
July 25, 2017
The didactic nature of the book makes it lose a star, but it's worth reading, to be certain. Works that focus on the cultural and political side, rather than the military side, of the Civil War are too rare on the ground, and too often filled with Lost-Cause-esqe justifications that lack primary sources.
In contrast, this work is so full of such sourcing it risks drowning in them. If you want a work that breaks down the actual concepts behind secession, explains its impact on the people (including African-Americans) of the region, and helps navigate the rise and fall of the Confederate goverment, this one's for you.
In contrast, this work is so full of such sourcing it risks drowning in them. If you want a work that breaks down the actual concepts behind secession, explains its impact on the people (including African-Americans) of the region, and helps navigate the rise and fall of the Confederate goverment, this one's for you.
July 17, 2024
This was a decent political history of the Confederacy. A topic that isn't often touched upon in great detail in many Civil War histories that are often more interested in the military narrative. There isn't detailed explanations of battles; they are mentioned, but they are mentioned in the context of the political atmosphere and to establish a timeline in the book. It was a unique way to present the history of the Confederacy and one that isn't often dwelt on. While interesting, I still found that it could be dry in places.
September 19, 2017
I found this book added significantly to my understanding of political and business interests in the south (primarily the slave owning oligarachy) prior to and during the civil war and how these interests led to the destruction of the government and their interests. Many points made in the book shed light on attitudes about race today.
February 26, 2022
This book was a very detailed study of the life of the Confederate States of America. The scholarship involved was excellent. It did not include a great deal of the military history of the Civil War as that was not the focus of the work. I felt that at times Davis wrote about some of the topics he dealt with just that little bit too much.
November 30, 2025
A thematic history of the Confederacy. Helpful for understanding the government and society of the short-lived Confederacy. Not a chronological history, so be aware of that heading in. I found the chapters on slavery in the South and the founding of the Confederacy and its government to be the most intriguing.
January 6, 2019
This was a slow read, but only because there was so much information to take in. I was absolutely amazed at how much Davis fit into these 430 pages. One of the most incredible history books I have ever read. I thoroughly enjoyed it!
June 15, 2019
A great, concise history of a short-lived republic. I was hesitant to read this book. In fact I had it in my possession for 15 yeats before reading it. But to my relief it was not an apologist endeavor, but simply a history of the CSA's formation and eventual, if not inevitable, disintegration.
April 1, 2023
I thought that I had read about everything about the Civil War that was out there but this book, which focuses on the diplomatic and political aspects of the Confederacy, had much material that I had never seen before. I consider this essential reading, if you are a Civil War buff.
May 9, 2023
A fast paced and readable history of the CSA from its inception to its fall. Davis gives us a bird's eye view of the war, showing Jefferson Davis and his government, and supplements that view with on-the-ground examples of the CSA's innumerable problems. The country was doomed from the start.
September 20, 2021
5 Stars for content. If you are looking for a complete account of politics in the Confederate States, this is the book. I learned a great deal.
3.5 Stars for readability. This was a laborious read.
3.5 Stars for readability. This was a laborious read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews