What do you think?
Rate this book
The War That Forged a Nation: Why the Civil War Still Matters
More than 140 years ago, Mark Twain observed that the Civil War had "uprooted institutions that were centuries old, changed the politics of a people, transformed the social life of half the country, and wrought so profoundly upon the entire national character that the influence cannot be measured short of two or three generations." In fact, five generations have passed, and Americans are still trying to measure the influence of the immense fratricidal conflict that nearly tore the nation apart.
In The War that Forged a Nation, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James M. McPherson considers why the Civil War remains so deeply embedded in our national psyche and identity. The drama and tragedy of the war, from its scope and size--an estimated death toll of 750,000, far more than the rest of the country's wars combined--to the nearly mythical individuals involved--Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson--help explain why the Civil War remains a topic of interest. But the legacy of the war extends far beyond historical interest or scholarly attention. Here, McPherson draws upon his work over the past fifty years to illuminate the war's continuing resonance across many dimensions of American life.
Touching upon themes that include the war's causes and consequences; the naval war; slavery and its abolition; and Lincoln as commander in chief, McPherson ultimately proves the impossibility of understanding the issues of our own time unless we first understand their roots in the era of the Civil War. From racial inequality and conflict between the North and South to questions of state sovereignty or the role of government in social change--these issues, McPherson shows, are as salient and controversial today as they were in the 1860s.
Thoughtful, provocative, and authoritative, The War that Forged a Nation looks anew at the reasons America's civil war has remained a subject of intense interest for the past century and a half, affirms the enduring relevance of the conflict for America today.
In The War that Forged a Nation, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James M. McPherson considers why the Civil War remains so deeply embedded in our national psyche and identity. The drama and tragedy of the war, from its scope and size--an estimated death toll of 750,000, far more than the rest of the country's wars combined--to the nearly mythical individuals involved--Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson--help explain why the Civil War remains a topic of interest. But the legacy of the war extends far beyond historical interest or scholarly attention. Here, McPherson draws upon his work over the past fifty years to illuminate the war's continuing resonance across many dimensions of American life.
Touching upon themes that include the war's causes and consequences; the naval war; slavery and its abolition; and Lincoln as commander in chief, McPherson ultimately proves the impossibility of understanding the issues of our own time unless we first understand their roots in the era of the Civil War. From racial inequality and conflict between the North and South to questions of state sovereignty or the role of government in social change--these issues, McPherson shows, are as salient and controversial today as they were in the 1860s.
Thoughtful, provocative, and authoritative, The War that Forged a Nation looks anew at the reasons America's civil war has remained a subject of intense interest for the past century and a half, affirms the enduring relevance of the conflict for America today.
219 pages, Paperback
First published March 2, 2015
95 people are currently reading
1914 people want to read
About the author
James M. McPherson
171 books713 followersJames M. McPherson, Ph.D. (Johns Hopkins University, 1963; B.A., Gustavus Adolphus College (St. Peter, Minnesota), 1958) is an American Civil War historian, and the George Henry Davis '86 Professor Emeritus of United States History at Princeton University. He received the Pulitzer Prize for Battle Cry of Freedom, his most famous book. He was the president of the American Historical Association in 2003, and is a member of the editorial board of Encyclopædia Britannica.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 146 reviews
July 15, 2022
After
Battle Cry of Freedom
, any James McPherson book has the potential to be comparatively underwhelming, but I was relieved that The War That Forged a Nation was at least better than McPherson's
Embattled Rebel: Jefferson Davis as Commander in Chief
(his limp defense of Jefferson Davis). A collection of essays that don't strictly conform to chronological order, the book touches on a number of civil war themes, such as the war's genesis in the climate of 19th century expansionism, its impact on the lives of black slaves, and the juggling of personal and political imperatives by Abraham Lincoln throughout the conflict.
Ultimately, the book fulfills 50% of its titular promise. With all the social, economic and governmental consequences of the U.S. Civil War, it can be considered, like the Revolutionary War before it, to have forged a nation. Why the war still matters, on the other hand, isn't quite answered, what with the lack of modern day context being provided (unless McPherson's excellent critique of recent civil war writings counts). On that front, books like Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner's Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause and The False Cause: Fraud, Fabrication, and White Supremacy in Confederate Memory are more apt. If you can forget the inappropriate subtitle, however, The War That Forged a Nation succeeds as a collection of thoughtful, informative essays on the war.
Ultimately, the book fulfills 50% of its titular promise. With all the social, economic and governmental consequences of the U.S. Civil War, it can be considered, like the Revolutionary War before it, to have forged a nation. Why the war still matters, on the other hand, isn't quite answered, what with the lack of modern day context being provided (unless McPherson's excellent critique of recent civil war writings counts). On that front, books like Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner's Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause and The False Cause: Fraud, Fabrication, and White Supremacy in Confederate Memory are more apt. If you can forget the inappropriate subtitle, however, The War That Forged a Nation succeeds as a collection of thoughtful, informative essays on the war.
April 1, 2019
Before the Civil War, the U. S. was a union of states - free and slave. After that war, those states became a nation of free human beings with liberty and justice for all.
The essays which make up this book tell of the various ways in which our nation evolved into what it is today. Still not perfect, but much better than the pre-Civil War era.
Many of the essays seem to miss the point of the title of this book, but they are still educational and that is what I look for in a non-fiction history based book.
The essays which make up this book tell of the various ways in which our nation evolved into what it is today. Still not perfect, but much better than the pre-Civil War era.
Many of the essays seem to miss the point of the title of this book, but they are still educational and that is what I look for in a non-fiction history based book.
September 1, 2015
To begin this book is not an originally conceived work but a compilation of previously written articles and essays. As such it is a disappointment. While McPherson is certainly an eminent Civil War scholar and author and the material in this book is well written an informative it fails to really address the question posed by the title, why the Civil War still matters. Only in Chapter 11 is this question given any direct treatment. Frankly, it was this question and McPherson's eminence that caused me to purchase this book. I was expecting this scholar to opine about problems we are currently experiencing as illustrated by issues concerning Confederate battle flags. Unfortunately, this book fails miserably in that regard. There is nothing in this book that hasn't been expansively treated in this author's many other better works, especially "Battle Cry of Freedom". I do not know why this book was printed but it was a waste of my time and money.
January 7, 2019
The title is incredibly misleading, but I enjoyed this somewhat uneven collection of essays. The ones that did not begin life as book reviews are much more engaging, and I learned some things about early California politics' racist beginnings that I never learned in 17 years of California public school education.
March 25, 2015
Visit any American bookstore, and head for the History section. Though world history in all its flavors enjoys generous shelf space, two periods occupy the greatest share. World War II and, especially, the American Civil War retain unmatched holds on American imaginations, in ways that bespeak our identity as a nation. If the Revolution created the American state, the Civil War created the American People. Its legacy remains very present, 150 years later.
Princeton historian James McPherson, whose half-century career has helped shape current attitudes about the Civil War, purposes here not to create a new history of the American Civil War, but to ruminate upon its import. This proves valuable because, reading along, it’s impossible to miss the resonances between the history McPherson describes, and today’s live issues. In McPherson’s telling, the past is present, and something we must wrestle with to this day.
Why did General Grant and Admiral Farragut succeed, while General McClellan and Admiral DuPont failed? The traits which defined our winning commanders still describe what characteristics we seek in politicians, business professionals, and other leaders. Or, how about this question: who freed the slaves? Most Americans reflexively say “Abraham Lincoln” or “the Thirteenth Amendment,” but McPherson musters diverse evidence proving this question defies any single simple answer.
McPherson traffics, not in knowledge, but in debates. Many essays respond to, or argue with, other historians, whose opinions and interpretations reveal how hotly contested the Civil War’s heritage remains. These responses sometimes seem inconsistent. In one essay, he disputes Yale theologian Harry Stout’s assertion that the Union cannot claim Just War status under conventional Christian mores. McPherson systematically dismantles Stout’s facts, and presents a persuasive counter-argument.
His very next essay, however, rejects Mark Neely’s account that the Civil War was characterized by “remarkable restraint.” Though McPherson says General Sherman “did not even commit the ‘wanton pillage’ of Southern legend,” he nevertheless cannot countenance the claim that a war which killed two percent of the American population showed “restraint.” Thus McPherson demonstrates his greatest point, that the Civil War resists pat answers and simple nationalistic bromides.
One essay, “Lincoln, Slavery, and Freedom,” describes how, throughout the war, the Union’s core motivating issue evolved, and with it, the American principle of freedom. North and South were divided by competing definitions of freedom: Southern slaveholders believed Northern regulation impeded economic freedom, the freedom of wealthy individuals to own and exploit other human beings. McPherson quotes Southern documents that precisely echo contemporary Tea Party definitions of freedom.
Elsewhere, an essay about General George McClellan, America’s youngest General-in-Chief ever, presents a stark split. McClellan succeeded Winfield Scott in command because his will to execute swift, unambiguous action apparently provided the moral backbone Lincoln demanded. Except, once he assumed command, this gentleman soldier became paranoid, indecisive, and timid. The change in McClellan highlights the gulf between American peacetime and wartime cultures.
And McPherson’s final essay stretches beyond the war itself. Radical Republicans attempted to force justice into Southern law, but declared victory around 1877, and went home. Southern Democrats then wrote bigotry, exploitation, and injustice into their laws—laws which remained enforced a full century after fighting ended. Some economic firebrands have attempted, recently, to roll back history to those post-Reconstruction times, forcing McPherson, and us, to ask: who really won the war?
This slim book, under 170 pages plus back matter, doesn’t pretend to resolve every question the Civil War raises. Not really a single book, but a collection of twelve essays, McPherson assumes readers’ prior familiarity with Civil War history. His broad view stretches from the war’s roots, in the racialized propaganda of the Mexican-American war, to Reconstruction’s long shadow, when the Confederates who lost the war arguably won the peace.
For James McPherson, history isn’t dead accumulations of facts. History encompasses debates about motivations, ways living societies define concepts like “justice” and “freedom,” and what bedrock principles make America truly American. To McPherson, the American state may have begun in 1776 (or 1789), but the American nation, the people who define themselves according to consistent principles and just laws, achieved adulthood between 1861 and 1865.
Now, McPherson never explicitly highlights the similarities between Civil War history and the present. He never comments directly upon current events; his historical ruminations only unfold through the Civil Rights Movement, and then only briefly. But he needn’t actually say any more. Attentive readers will observe that, on multiple issues—gun control, economic restraint, leadership, and more—the past is, in McPherson’s telling, visibly present.
Princeton historian James McPherson, whose half-century career has helped shape current attitudes about the Civil War, purposes here not to create a new history of the American Civil War, but to ruminate upon its import. This proves valuable because, reading along, it’s impossible to miss the resonances between the history McPherson describes, and today’s live issues. In McPherson’s telling, the past is present, and something we must wrestle with to this day.
Why did General Grant and Admiral Farragut succeed, while General McClellan and Admiral DuPont failed? The traits which defined our winning commanders still describe what characteristics we seek in politicians, business professionals, and other leaders. Or, how about this question: who freed the slaves? Most Americans reflexively say “Abraham Lincoln” or “the Thirteenth Amendment,” but McPherson musters diverse evidence proving this question defies any single simple answer.
McPherson traffics, not in knowledge, but in debates. Many essays respond to, or argue with, other historians, whose opinions and interpretations reveal how hotly contested the Civil War’s heritage remains. These responses sometimes seem inconsistent. In one essay, he disputes Yale theologian Harry Stout’s assertion that the Union cannot claim Just War status under conventional Christian mores. McPherson systematically dismantles Stout’s facts, and presents a persuasive counter-argument.
His very next essay, however, rejects Mark Neely’s account that the Civil War was characterized by “remarkable restraint.” Though McPherson says General Sherman “did not even commit the ‘wanton pillage’ of Southern legend,” he nevertheless cannot countenance the claim that a war which killed two percent of the American population showed “restraint.” Thus McPherson demonstrates his greatest point, that the Civil War resists pat answers and simple nationalistic bromides.
One essay, “Lincoln, Slavery, and Freedom,” describes how, throughout the war, the Union’s core motivating issue evolved, and with it, the American principle of freedom. North and South were divided by competing definitions of freedom: Southern slaveholders believed Northern regulation impeded economic freedom, the freedom of wealthy individuals to own and exploit other human beings. McPherson quotes Southern documents that precisely echo contemporary Tea Party definitions of freedom.
Elsewhere, an essay about General George McClellan, America’s youngest General-in-Chief ever, presents a stark split. McClellan succeeded Winfield Scott in command because his will to execute swift, unambiguous action apparently provided the moral backbone Lincoln demanded. Except, once he assumed command, this gentleman soldier became paranoid, indecisive, and timid. The change in McClellan highlights the gulf between American peacetime and wartime cultures.
And McPherson’s final essay stretches beyond the war itself. Radical Republicans attempted to force justice into Southern law, but declared victory around 1877, and went home. Southern Democrats then wrote bigotry, exploitation, and injustice into their laws—laws which remained enforced a full century after fighting ended. Some economic firebrands have attempted, recently, to roll back history to those post-Reconstruction times, forcing McPherson, and us, to ask: who really won the war?
This slim book, under 170 pages plus back matter, doesn’t pretend to resolve every question the Civil War raises. Not really a single book, but a collection of twelve essays, McPherson assumes readers’ prior familiarity with Civil War history. His broad view stretches from the war’s roots, in the racialized propaganda of the Mexican-American war, to Reconstruction’s long shadow, when the Confederates who lost the war arguably won the peace.
For James McPherson, history isn’t dead accumulations of facts. History encompasses debates about motivations, ways living societies define concepts like “justice” and “freedom,” and what bedrock principles make America truly American. To McPherson, the American state may have begun in 1776 (or 1789), but the American nation, the people who define themselves according to consistent principles and just laws, achieved adulthood between 1861 and 1865.
Now, McPherson never explicitly highlights the similarities between Civil War history and the present. He never comments directly upon current events; his historical ruminations only unfold through the Civil Rights Movement, and then only briefly. But he needn’t actually say any more. Attentive readers will observe that, on multiple issues—gun control, economic restraint, leadership, and more—the past is, in McPherson’s telling, visibly present.
September 9, 2024
A collection of essays that together explore the cultural and interpersonal impact of events of the war. I liked the background on earlier Mexican and Indian wars, and local skirmishes in Kansas, which informed the Civil War. Contains some details on federal and state politics, and quotes from letters that show personal conflict between Lincoln and his generals. Also discusses the Southern backlash in the 1870s, in the form of violence from localized white supremacist groups.
February 24, 2016
1st read from April 17 to 19, 2015
Reread Feb 20-24, 2016 for Civil War group discussion. McPherson = best...period!
Reread Feb 20-24, 2016 for Civil War group discussion. McPherson = best...period!
August 10, 2016
I find history fascinating. American history is no exception, and as an American, I feel I should do more to learn about the events and people of the past that have shaped the United States of America.
“The War That Forged a Nation: Why the Civil War Still Matters” is a great read. However, this is qualified praise, as I didn't feel JM did a good enough job of presenting "why the civil war still matters". I felt it was incumbent upon me as a reader to intuit how the past informs the present.
I wish more exposure was given to how the 1860s paralleled the 1960s. It was so interesting to know that the Reconstruction efforts after the Civil War has its descendant in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. That is, it’s not enough that the country promulgated laws (14th Amendment and 15th Amendment to the Constitution) to protect former slaves and accord them rights as U.S. citizens, those laws had to be enforced for years, even decades afterwards to be effective. So too the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 needed federal action to become de facto laws, not just de jure laws.
Another facet of American history I thought quite illuminating was the stir caused by California’s admission into the Union (as in USA, not the Northern faction of the US Civil War). As a Californian, I had no idea the extent to which pro-slavery sentiments were expressed and promoted. Almost everyone knows of the California Gold Rush (the ‘49ers), but I don’t think it’s widely known that this singular event is what kept California from being admitted into the Union as a slave state. As shown by McPherson, the great influx of 49ers did not want slavery to compete with their claims to possible golden riches. They effectively agitated to keep California a slave-free state, thus the pro-slavery camps in the United States Congress were forced to look to other potential incoming states to redress the balance between the number of pro- and anti-slave states.
McPherson writes a well researched book, with good prose and fine narration. He smartly steers clear of “acadamese” but without dumbing down the subject of the book. The casual reader can easily read this book because it doesn’t get bogged down in minutiae, or become a litany of names and dates. (Although the book does contain a plethora of footnotes, as it rightly should, since source material must be cited).
This does not mean however, that McPherson is not given to an historian’s tendency to meander into sidebars. For example, I felt the chapter titled “Just War” was unnecessary. This chapter takes a close look at another historian’s work [“Upon the Altar of the Nation: A Moral History of the Civil War”], specifically the argument as to whether or not the US Civil War can be considered a “just war” and if so, which side – the North or the South – holds the moral high ground in this war. As stated, I didn’t think this side trip was necessary in a book aiming to express why a war fought over a century ago still matters in American society today. To my mind, why the Civil War needed or didn’t need to be fought does nothing to change the fact that it did occur, and the country was changed as a result of it.
So too I felt the chapter discussing the savagery and cruelty the two forces perpetrated on each other was an unnecessary sidebar. Perhaps the author’s aim was to set straight the notion that real attempts were made to protect non-combatants (women, children, elderly, infirm) and property that served no useful war purposes, but here again, I read the book to see how this devastating war still has an impact on today’s America; we know that wars fought today are done in accordance with certain laws and treaties (Geneva Convention for example) that proscribe the manner of warfare. For me, there was no need to spend an entire chapter showing how or how not (and to what extent) both sides perpetrated atrocities on each other. Thus, this was yet another bit of filler to what is an otherwise good book.
There is one argument McPherson brought forth that I wish he had expounded on: the extent to which the slaves themselves were “the prime movers in securing their own liberty”. That is, history places too much emphasis on the Union Army, or the Emancipation Proclamation, or other actions of Congress and President Lincoln in securing freedom for slaves. Self-emancipation – the initiative of slaves to secure their own freedom by running away came to be seen by historians as co-equal in the narrative of how slaves secured their freedom. Acts of Congress, Lincoln and the Union Army were viewed as confirmation, as official validation of something the slaves themselves initiated. For me, this was analogous to the civil rights period of the 1960s. People of color agitated for change to laws and society, and in time, they secured those changes. It was not just one or the other, but both were necessary to truly effect changes in America.
One point I wish to emphasize is the parallel between Lincoln’s gradual moves to end slavery versus the gradual rights for the LGBT community seen in recent years. McPherson’s book does a great job showing the President leading the people (and Congress) to make the abolition of slavery a central tenet of the war. This is in contrast to LGBT issues where the public and activists have led the politicians on granting greater rights to this community. It’s just so interesting living in this modern age and seeing some of the same arguments that were used to agitate for abolition now being re-used in the fight to accord more rights to the LGBT community. Specifically, allusions to America's founding documents - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (abolition invoked the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” while gay marriage invoked the rights accorded by the 14th Amendment). In this way, the thorny issues could be separated. The Bill of Rights was used to separate racial prejudice against blacks from the actual consideration of the abolition of slavery. In our present times, the US Constitution was used to separate moral repugnance of homosexuality from the rights gay people as people should be afforded in American society.
Another comparison I wish to highlight is a facet of Lincoln presented in this book vis-à-vis our modern times, is that of the President as Commander in Chief. In Lincoln’s time, he had scant military training/background, but emerged as one of America’s greatest ever Commanders in Chief. As McPherson states in Chapter 9, “[Lincoln] enunciated a clear national policy, and through trial and error evolved national and military strategies to achieve it.” Contrast this with the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. For the latter men, future historians will have to debate the effectiveness of each man and his actions in the Wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. But, based on present history, it doesn’t look good. Both Bush and Obama will not likely been seen as great CICs overseeing national strategies/policies to bring freedom to the peoples of the Middle East (or whatever the rationale du jour is for these wars). But perhaps I’m painting too broad a brush the failures of these 21st century presidents. The contrasts between a domestic war in the 19th century and 21st century warfare in Asia are too numerous to list. It is perhaps enough to suggest that whatever failings future historians will assign to Bush and Obama as regards the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, their actions as Commander in Chief were not the overriding reason for the wars’ failures.
Up to now, my review has centered on why the US Civil War still resonates in American society. But, I close this review by saying that McPherson brings up a point not often mentioned regarding the US Civil War – its impact on the rest of the world. McPherson posits that in the 19th century, much of the world was ruled by kings, or emperors, or despots. America, in stark contrast, experienced almost one century of democratic republicanism. If the American “experiment” in democracy were to continue, it would give hope to oppressed and disenfranchised peoples all over the world. Therefore, to some extent, monarchies and despotic regimes hoped the Confederacy would prevail so as to prove that a democratic republic was unworkable. [Indeed, McPherson illustrated that some European countries had their own forms of democracy which failed.] Partly, it was those undemocractic countries’ repugnance of slavery that prevented them from wholeheartedly and proactively endorsing the Confederacy. In the 20th century, we saw the flowering of democracy (or at least the end of formal colonialism in many parts of the world) in almost all corners of the planet. Not to toot our own horns too much, but I feel this is in some small measure the result of the example of the USA as a successful democracy, which was forged in the blood, sweat and tears of the civil war. How might the US and the world be different today, had not the Union Army prevailed lo those many, many years ago?
ETA: I just found out this book is in fact a collection of essays. Thus, the "sidebars" as I called them now make sense, and I withdraw my negative reaction to their inclusion in this work.
“The War That Forged a Nation: Why the Civil War Still Matters” is a great read. However, this is qualified praise, as I didn't feel JM did a good enough job of presenting "why the civil war still matters". I felt it was incumbent upon me as a reader to intuit how the past informs the present.
I wish more exposure was given to how the 1860s paralleled the 1960s. It was so interesting to know that the Reconstruction efforts after the Civil War has its descendant in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. That is, it’s not enough that the country promulgated laws (14th Amendment and 15th Amendment to the Constitution) to protect former slaves and accord them rights as U.S. citizens, those laws had to be enforced for years, even decades afterwards to be effective. So too the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 needed federal action to become de facto laws, not just de jure laws.
Another facet of American history I thought quite illuminating was the stir caused by California’s admission into the Union (as in USA, not the Northern faction of the US Civil War). As a Californian, I had no idea the extent to which pro-slavery sentiments were expressed and promoted. Almost everyone knows of the California Gold Rush (the ‘49ers), but I don’t think it’s widely known that this singular event is what kept California from being admitted into the Union as a slave state. As shown by McPherson, the great influx of 49ers did not want slavery to compete with their claims to possible golden riches. They effectively agitated to keep California a slave-free state, thus the pro-slavery camps in the United States Congress were forced to look to other potential incoming states to redress the balance between the number of pro- and anti-slave states.
McPherson writes a well researched book, with good prose and fine narration. He smartly steers clear of “acadamese” but without dumbing down the subject of the book. The casual reader can easily read this book because it doesn’t get bogged down in minutiae, or become a litany of names and dates. (Although the book does contain a plethora of footnotes, as it rightly should, since source material must be cited).
This does not mean however, that McPherson is not given to an historian’s tendency to meander into sidebars. For example, I felt the chapter titled “Just War” was unnecessary. This chapter takes a close look at another historian’s work [“Upon the Altar of the Nation: A Moral History of the Civil War”], specifically the argument as to whether or not the US Civil War can be considered a “just war” and if so, which side – the North or the South – holds the moral high ground in this war. As stated, I didn’t think this side trip was necessary in a book aiming to express why a war fought over a century ago still matters in American society today. To my mind, why the Civil War needed or didn’t need to be fought does nothing to change the fact that it did occur, and the country was changed as a result of it.
So too I felt the chapter discussing the savagery and cruelty the two forces perpetrated on each other was an unnecessary sidebar. Perhaps the author’s aim was to set straight the notion that real attempts were made to protect non-combatants (women, children, elderly, infirm) and property that served no useful war purposes, but here again, I read the book to see how this devastating war still has an impact on today’s America; we know that wars fought today are done in accordance with certain laws and treaties (Geneva Convention for example) that proscribe the manner of warfare. For me, there was no need to spend an entire chapter showing how or how not (and to what extent) both sides perpetrated atrocities on each other. Thus, this was yet another bit of filler to what is an otherwise good book.
There is one argument McPherson brought forth that I wish he had expounded on: the extent to which the slaves themselves were “the prime movers in securing their own liberty”. That is, history places too much emphasis on the Union Army, or the Emancipation Proclamation, or other actions of Congress and President Lincoln in securing freedom for slaves. Self-emancipation – the initiative of slaves to secure their own freedom by running away came to be seen by historians as co-equal in the narrative of how slaves secured their freedom. Acts of Congress, Lincoln and the Union Army were viewed as confirmation, as official validation of something the slaves themselves initiated. For me, this was analogous to the civil rights period of the 1960s. People of color agitated for change to laws and society, and in time, they secured those changes. It was not just one or the other, but both were necessary to truly effect changes in America.
One point I wish to emphasize is the parallel between Lincoln’s gradual moves to end slavery versus the gradual rights for the LGBT community seen in recent years. McPherson’s book does a great job showing the President leading the people (and Congress) to make the abolition of slavery a central tenet of the war. This is in contrast to LGBT issues where the public and activists have led the politicians on granting greater rights to this community. It’s just so interesting living in this modern age and seeing some of the same arguments that were used to agitate for abolition now being re-used in the fight to accord more rights to the LGBT community. Specifically, allusions to America's founding documents - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (abolition invoked the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” while gay marriage invoked the rights accorded by the 14th Amendment). In this way, the thorny issues could be separated. The Bill of Rights was used to separate racial prejudice against blacks from the actual consideration of the abolition of slavery. In our present times, the US Constitution was used to separate moral repugnance of homosexuality from the rights gay people as people should be afforded in American society.
Another comparison I wish to highlight is a facet of Lincoln presented in this book vis-à-vis our modern times, is that of the President as Commander in Chief. In Lincoln’s time, he had scant military training/background, but emerged as one of America’s greatest ever Commanders in Chief. As McPherson states in Chapter 9, “[Lincoln] enunciated a clear national policy, and through trial and error evolved national and military strategies to achieve it.” Contrast this with the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. For the latter men, future historians will have to debate the effectiveness of each man and his actions in the Wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. But, based on present history, it doesn’t look good. Both Bush and Obama will not likely been seen as great CICs overseeing national strategies/policies to bring freedom to the peoples of the Middle East (or whatever the rationale du jour is for these wars). But perhaps I’m painting too broad a brush the failures of these 21st century presidents. The contrasts between a domestic war in the 19th century and 21st century warfare in Asia are too numerous to list. It is perhaps enough to suggest that whatever failings future historians will assign to Bush and Obama as regards the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, their actions as Commander in Chief were not the overriding reason for the wars’ failures.
Up to now, my review has centered on why the US Civil War still resonates in American society. But, I close this review by saying that McPherson brings up a point not often mentioned regarding the US Civil War – its impact on the rest of the world. McPherson posits that in the 19th century, much of the world was ruled by kings, or emperors, or despots. America, in stark contrast, experienced almost one century of democratic republicanism. If the American “experiment” in democracy were to continue, it would give hope to oppressed and disenfranchised peoples all over the world. Therefore, to some extent, monarchies and despotic regimes hoped the Confederacy would prevail so as to prove that a democratic republic was unworkable. [Indeed, McPherson illustrated that some European countries had their own forms of democracy which failed.] Partly, it was those undemocractic countries’ repugnance of slavery that prevented them from wholeheartedly and proactively endorsing the Confederacy. In the 20th century, we saw the flowering of democracy (or at least the end of formal colonialism in many parts of the world) in almost all corners of the planet. Not to toot our own horns too much, but I feel this is in some small measure the result of the example of the USA as a successful democracy, which was forged in the blood, sweat and tears of the civil war. How might the US and the world be different today, had not the Union Army prevailed lo those many, many years ago?
ETA: I just found out this book is in fact a collection of essays. Thus, the "sidebars" as I called them now make sense, and I withdraw my negative reaction to their inclusion in this work.
December 15, 2018
I'm quite torn on this review... It was a great book, it just didn't match the marketing/title at all. It's a group of essays on the civil war, only three or four of which had anything to do with how the war "forged a nation" or "why the civil war still matters." Those chapters were fantastic and thought provoking.
And in reality, the other chapters were really interesting, too. They just had nothing to do with the supposed theme of the book - Lincoln's relationship with the general in chief, why the North's navy was so successful, etc. FWIW, these chapters were plenty accessible to non-history buffs like me.
And in reality, the other chapters were really interesting, too. They just had nothing to do with the supposed theme of the book - Lincoln's relationship with the general in chief, why the North's navy was so successful, etc. FWIW, these chapters were plenty accessible to non-history buffs like me.
December 25, 2014
Highlights from the Civil War
Rather than a comprehensive history of the Civil War, McPherson presents a series of essays featuring: Lincoln as a political strategist and Commander in Chief; the Mexican War and California's entry into the United States as a free state; contrasts between commanders, notably McClellan, DuPont, Grant and Farragut; and the horrors of Reconstruction in the South.
Other chapters deal with philosophical questions such as: Liberty; What is a Just War; How the objectives of anti-slavery and winning the war came together to produce the Emancipation Proclamation.
Several of the chapters, such as the ones on “Mexico, California and the Coming of the Civil War”, and “Death and Destruction in the Civil War” critique the books of other historians. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on how California entered the United States as a free as opposed to slave state. I had never read some of that history. It is fascinating and adds another dimension to the tensions leading to the conflict.
I highly recommend this book. Whether you're a Civil War scholar, or just enjoy reading history, this is a book that will captivate you. The discussions of liberty, just war, and what Lincoln's legacy means for our times are well worth reading for anyone looking at today's political situation.
Rather than a comprehensive history of the Civil War, McPherson presents a series of essays featuring: Lincoln as a political strategist and Commander in Chief; the Mexican War and California's entry into the United States as a free state; contrasts between commanders, notably McClellan, DuPont, Grant and Farragut; and the horrors of Reconstruction in the South.
Other chapters deal with philosophical questions such as: Liberty; What is a Just War; How the objectives of anti-slavery and winning the war came together to produce the Emancipation Proclamation.
Several of the chapters, such as the ones on “Mexico, California and the Coming of the Civil War”, and “Death and Destruction in the Civil War” critique the books of other historians. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on how California entered the United States as a free as opposed to slave state. I had never read some of that history. It is fascinating and adds another dimension to the tensions leading to the conflict.
I highly recommend this book. Whether you're a Civil War scholar, or just enjoy reading history, this is a book that will captivate you. The discussions of liberty, just war, and what Lincoln's legacy means for our times are well worth reading for anyone looking at today's political situation.
May 17, 2019
This is very educational and under 200 pages, so it's ideal if you want to learn about the American Civil War but don't want to commit to massive great thing.
In the process of providing context it also deals with the Mexican-American War, which is quite an eye-opener. It turns out this was a savage affair without much justification.
The excerpts from people's letters and dairies are a very worthwhile insight. It's not as if everyone was prim and proper in the nineteenth century. The young major general, George B. McClennan is amusing: for example, he writes letters to his wife comparing Abraham Lincoln to a monkey and says, verbatim, 'The President is an idiot'.
The aftermath of the Civil War really drives home the point that it's a relatively modern idea that Republicans are the baddies and the Democrats are the goodies. In the 1860s and 1870s, the Republications were undoubtedly the party of 'progress' while the Democrats stood for preventing it, and doing so with violence and mass murder.
In the process of providing context it also deals with the Mexican-American War, which is quite an eye-opener. It turns out this was a savage affair without much justification.
The excerpts from people's letters and dairies are a very worthwhile insight. It's not as if everyone was prim and proper in the nineteenth century. The young major general, George B. McClennan is amusing: for example, he writes letters to his wife comparing Abraham Lincoln to a monkey and says, verbatim, 'The President is an idiot'.
The aftermath of the Civil War really drives home the point that it's a relatively modern idea that Republicans are the baddies and the Democrats are the goodies. In the 1860s and 1870s, the Republications were undoubtedly the party of 'progress' while the Democrats stood for preventing it, and doing so with violence and mass murder.
June 13, 2017
This compact book is made up of a series of 12 essays and different aspects of the Civil War. I suppose what disappointed me was that I wanted to read his thoughts on why the war still matters (I have my own. I am a history teacher and am always on the lookout for reasons to tell my classes why history matters generally. The essays themselves were very interesting although some of them have been previously published as book reviews. That is fine with me since I hadn't read them. Overall, it is a very good book but one which assumes that the reader already has knowledge about the War. I recommend it.
December 26, 2020
This is a collection of essays written by James McPherson over the years relating to the Civil War. The title is somewhat misleading since most of the essays do not relate to the topic of why the Civil War still matters; he only touched on this issue in 3 of the chapters. A few of the essays were book critiques. All in all, this was a mixed bag; a few of the chapters were interesting, but for the most part, not what I was expecting.
February 18, 2020
I'm generally sceptical of collected essays as a book. Too often they are simply grab-bags of already published material with profit and ego rather than purpose and education often their reason for being bound. Like Churchill's pudding, they often have no theme. This book is that rare exception.
The War that Forged a Nation is a well organised, insightful, lusciously written series of reflections on the US Civil War by perhaps the greatest historian of the conflict James M. McPherson. The essays offer both dozens of little insights (as is common of collected essays), but importantly also a few larger and well-reinforced themes.
McPherson returns again and again to the nature and evolution of Lincoln's approach and the significance of the pre and post war years for understanding the conflict. In a line I read elsewhere, but which I'm sure McPherson would agree given his arguments through the book, it is odd the US military was so surprised by the continuation of war in Iraq in 2003, when they had spent nearly a century fruitlessly trying to enforce peace in the US south.
One of the pleasures of this book is McPherson clearly sees scholarship as a conversation. Several of the essays take as their starting point another book and McPherson's assessment of their claims and insights. Though sometimes critical, he is always attempting to draw out the broad ideas, rather than nit pick on details as too many historians obsessed by the cult of the archives are want to do.
This book does not sit in the top pantheon of books on the US Civil War. But given the parts are valuable and the sum of the parts is even greater (rare in such a format), this is a fine read for anyone with an interest in the US Civil War. And if you're interested in the USA, you should be interested in the Civil War.
The War that Forged a Nation is a well organised, insightful, lusciously written series of reflections on the US Civil War by perhaps the greatest historian of the conflict James M. McPherson. The essays offer both dozens of little insights (as is common of collected essays), but importantly also a few larger and well-reinforced themes.
McPherson returns again and again to the nature and evolution of Lincoln's approach and the significance of the pre and post war years for understanding the conflict. In a line I read elsewhere, but which I'm sure McPherson would agree given his arguments through the book, it is odd the US military was so surprised by the continuation of war in Iraq in 2003, when they had spent nearly a century fruitlessly trying to enforce peace in the US south.
One of the pleasures of this book is McPherson clearly sees scholarship as a conversation. Several of the essays take as their starting point another book and McPherson's assessment of their claims and insights. Though sometimes critical, he is always attempting to draw out the broad ideas, rather than nit pick on details as too many historians obsessed by the cult of the archives are want to do.
This book does not sit in the top pantheon of books on the US Civil War. But given the parts are valuable and the sum of the parts is even greater (rare in such a format), this is a fine read for anyone with an interest in the US Civil War. And if you're interested in the USA, you should be interested in the Civil War.
August 2, 2020
This book was excellent. I struggle with reading non-fiction, but the way this book is set up as a set of essays vs one huge history text was incredibly helpful. Almost all of them held my undivided attention and I learned so much.
March 3, 2019
Enjoyed learning some lesser known details about the war and after the war and how those things affected the future issues in our country. Interesting format with stand alone chapters written by the author for shorter formats.
October 16, 2020
A good collection of essays dealing with the Civil War .
February 1, 2019
James McPherson is renown as a Civil War historian; his main work is “Battle Cry of Freedom” (which I have not read). This book has a promising title, but it consists of a number of essays about the Civil War, not a consistent narrative.
I found the first essay the most enlightening. It explains how the Civil War changed our country from a “union” to a “nation”. This goes to the heart of the “states rights” discussion that continues today. Prior to the War, the states did regard themselves more as independent entities allied with each other. McPherson traces the change in attitude through changes in Lincoln’s rhetoric over those years.
The second essay did not disappoint – McPherson discusses the concept of liberty, and how the word meant different things to the north than to the south. The idea of positive versus negative liberty came from an essay by Isaiah Berlin in 1958. I’m going to be lazy and quote the definitions directly: “Positive liberty is the possession of the capacity to act upon one’s free will, as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint on one’s actions.” I think this distinction is important, as we in the US are prone to throw around the phrase, “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” While the south perceived the north as impinging on their liberty, they meant their liberty to be slaveholders (negative liberty).
Other essays covered these topics:
--Was the Civil War a “just war”? This can be defined as a defensive war. The South massacred black soldiers, while the North caused harm to enemy civilians. Hard to tell which was justified.
--Attitudes toward death of Civil War soldiers – their belief in the afterlife impacted this. A “good death”.
--The impact of the naval war on relationships with Europe
--Was the Civil War “total war”? Without going into detail, this considers impact on non-combatants. t can be argued either way. McPherson calls it “hard war”
--Lincoln’s attitude toward race. In private, he was far less racist that most in his time.
So, many of these essays were thought-provoking.
I found the first essay the most enlightening. It explains how the Civil War changed our country from a “union” to a “nation”. This goes to the heart of the “states rights” discussion that continues today. Prior to the War, the states did regard themselves more as independent entities allied with each other. McPherson traces the change in attitude through changes in Lincoln’s rhetoric over those years.
The second essay did not disappoint – McPherson discusses the concept of liberty, and how the word meant different things to the north than to the south. The idea of positive versus negative liberty came from an essay by Isaiah Berlin in 1958. I’m going to be lazy and quote the definitions directly: “Positive liberty is the possession of the capacity to act upon one’s free will, as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint on one’s actions.” I think this distinction is important, as we in the US are prone to throw around the phrase, “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” While the south perceived the north as impinging on their liberty, they meant their liberty to be slaveholders (negative liberty).
Other essays covered these topics:
--Was the Civil War a “just war”? This can be defined as a defensive war. The South massacred black soldiers, while the North caused harm to enemy civilians. Hard to tell which was justified.
--Attitudes toward death of Civil War soldiers – their belief in the afterlife impacted this. A “good death”.
--The impact of the naval war on relationships with Europe
--Was the Civil War “total war”? Without going into detail, this considers impact on non-combatants. t can be argued either way. McPherson calls it “hard war”
--Lincoln’s attitude toward race. In private, he was far less racist that most in his time.
So, many of these essays were thought-provoking.
July 9, 2016
I had resisted reading this slim (190 pages) volume of 12 essays by James McPherson because I thought it looked like kind of a "cash in" entry on the Civil War. Sort of a rerelease of another Springsteen retrospective.
And while there is some repetition and overlap among these modified book reviews and analyses of various aspects of the war and its legacy, this is what McPherson does best: Combines scholarship with perspective and a deft writing touch to make ideas and significance of history become clearer.
It brings important aspects of the Civil War to the forefront without getting caught up in itself. This is McPherson in his role of commentator as well as historian, and it's a much more substantial collection than I had anticipated.
Most significant are chapters on the connection with the war with Mexico, Lincoln's legacy for our time, Lincoln's political-military approach with the Emancipation Proclamation, and "How did freedom come?"
The final chapter of "War and Peace in the Post-Civil War South" is as complete and interesting an overview of Reconstruction as anything could hope to be in 18 concise pages.
This book provides a marvelous opportunity for us to see the forest in the trees.
And while there is some repetition and overlap among these modified book reviews and analyses of various aspects of the war and its legacy, this is what McPherson does best: Combines scholarship with perspective and a deft writing touch to make ideas and significance of history become clearer.
It brings important aspects of the Civil War to the forefront without getting caught up in itself. This is McPherson in his role of commentator as well as historian, and it's a much more substantial collection than I had anticipated.
Most significant are chapters on the connection with the war with Mexico, Lincoln's legacy for our time, Lincoln's political-military approach with the Emancipation Proclamation, and "How did freedom come?"
The final chapter of "War and Peace in the Post-Civil War South" is as complete and interesting an overview of Reconstruction as anything could hope to be in 18 concise pages.
This book provides a marvelous opportunity for us to see the forest in the trees.
September 2, 2015
McPherson is one of the most cogent, perceptive and articulate historians of the Civil War available - always worth reading! This collection of stand-alone essays touches on slavery (the single actual causative factor of the war), McClellan, the continuing relevance of the war, the overlooked significance of the naval aspects of the war, post-war South, aspects of Lincoln's leadership (civil and military), Lincoln's continuing legacy through the intervening ages into the modern day. McPherson is thoughtful, provocative - and authoritative! This is but the most recent of several essay collections that he has published - all of them are great reads! Must reads - if you have any interest in the Civil War.
August 10, 2016
While I wish that McPherson had spent more time on the theme that gave title to the book "Why the Civil War Still Matters", this book does cover some topics that do not often get addressed in general histories of the period. I thought the essays on the role of the Mexican War, Lincoln and the Civil War's impact on the world at large and the post-Civil War chapters most insightful. I also enjoyed the chapter on Admiral Farragut interesting, as I live just down the road from his hometown of Farragut...he really should get more credit for his role in helping to save the Union. This is probably not a gateway book for non-history readers; it just might be a little too dry.
September 27, 2016
As others have said, this is a collection of previously published essays, mainly retooled book reviews. As such, the subtitle bears no relation to the content. The topics are random and some of McPherson's comments appear more than once. If you're looking for a top-flight collection of McPherson essays, I recommend Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution, a work of brilliance.
May 25, 2015
A new and worthwhile collection of essays by the Pulitzer-prize winning Civil War author, James McPherson. The lead essay is "Why the Civil War Still Matters" and many of the essays, on the Mexican war, navies and admirals, slavery, Reconstruction, Lincoln as Commander-in-Chief, and Lincoln's legacy all speak to the Civil War's relevance, 150 years on. It touches on a number of different areas, not just the military aspects, and should be of interest to many different readers.
July 2, 2015
Twelve Essays Worth Reading
What the headline says. McPherson is a veteran Civil War historian of almost six decades of experience, and it shines through as he discusses a topic that has returned to the limelight with the debate on display of the Confederate flag. Some of these essays have been published previously, but these have been updated for this edition. All are engaging and informative, as is his wont.
What the headline says. McPherson is a veteran Civil War historian of almost six decades of experience, and it shines through as he discusses a topic that has returned to the limelight with the debate on display of the Confederate flag. Some of these essays have been published previously, but these have been updated for this edition. All are engaging and informative, as is his wont.
August 1, 2023
McPherson is simply the best civil war historian of this generation
This series of essays remind us of the continuing resonance of the Civil war to shaping the U.S. as a nation, both in its justifiable sense of its own exceptionalism and its continuing struggle to live up to its own ideals.
This series of essays remind us of the continuing resonance of the Civil war to shaping the U.S. as a nation, both in its justifiable sense of its own exceptionalism and its continuing struggle to live up to its own ideals.
January 6, 2017
It was ok, but not really not for me.
It was a collection of academic essays whose main unifying theme was (obviously) the civil war. I know there are echoes from the civil war today, but I don't think this book really achieved the goal it stated regarding the relevance to today.
It was a collection of academic essays whose main unifying theme was (obviously) the civil war. I know there are echoes from the civil war today, but I don't think this book really achieved the goal it stated regarding the relevance to today.
January 20, 2018
Although I have to agree with most of the reviews on this book saying that the title was misleading, I enjoyed the format of the book. Each chapter was read as a separate article and I enjoyed most if not all.
September 15, 2018
The second half of the title is a bit misleading. Each section is well-written, don't get me wrong, but it's more of a compilation of musings on various topics than it is a single book that makes any sorts of clear argument(s) about why the Civil War still matters.
December 5, 2020
The War That Forged a Nation: Why the Civil War Still Matters is a collection of articles by Dr. James M. McPherson, one of the leading authorities on our country’s defining and most damaging episode. The preface concludes with a welcome and much-needed antidote to the rigidity displayed by some purveyors of the standard version of that conflict: “I welcome disagreement and dialogue, for that is how scholarship and understanding advance.”
The book’s first chapter cogently details many of the effects of the Civil War and its aftermath in a discussion of the war’s meaning. It notes how most slave states seceded “not only” because of the threat to slavery, but also they were “looking forward to the expansion of a dynamic, independent slave-holding polity,” in parts of Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. The next chapter, on the coming of the Civil War, quotes Ulysses S. Grant’s Personal Memoirs on the great injustice of the Mexican War. A review of the Papers of U.S. Grant, however, indicates that Grant exaggerated the intensity of his feelings, if he didn’t fabricate them long afterward. McPherson confirms that President James K. Polk insisted on the Rio Grande and not the Nueces as Texas’ southern border; this historically incorrect claim permitted Polk to instigate what was clearly an unjust war.
After a discourse on the concept of a just war, a succeeding chapter describes the extent of the death and destruction of the American Civil War, and utilizes the recently revised estimate of 750,000 military deaths for the two opponents. McPherson notes how historian Mark Neely rightly challenged the notion of the conflict as “total war”; it was not a war “without any scruples or limitations.” But the assertion that large portions of the South looked “like bombed-out cities of Europe and Japan” goes somewhat too far. Recounting the atrocities on both sides, McPherson is also on strong ground when he challenges Neely’s minimization of deaths on both sides of the conflict.
The chapter on American navies and British neutrality contains a very good explanation of the legality and effectiveness of the Union’s blockade of southern ports. It might have benefitted from a discussion of Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles’ recommendation for a simple closure of these ports. In another chapter, on two Union admirals: David G. Farragut and Samuel F. DuPont, Farragut is given his just due. His operations “did indeed entitle him to virtually equal status with Grant and Sherman in winning the war.” “The Union navy deserves more credit for Northern victory than it has traditionally received.” McPherson quotes Grant’s Memoirs on how, without the navy, the Vicksburg “campaign could not have been made.” General Grant, though, frequently minimized the navy’s worth, in general, and the very effective naval blockade, in particular. He personally denigrated Gideon Welles. But it was Welles who plucked Farragut from far down the seniority list, betting on his loyalty and ability. McPherson concluded that, “Rarely in the history of naval warfare has a gamble paid off so handsomely.”
A chapter on how did freedom come, details how slaves liberated themselves, but it mentions the sentiment that Lincoln “never understood or supported” emancipation, and he “did not intend for the [emancipation proclamation] to free a single Negro.” In several chapters concerning the American president, McPherson accurately observed, it seems, that “no one deserved more credit for the [military] victory than Abraham Lincoln.” A chapter that speaks of “Lincoln, Slavery and Freedmen” describes how General John Frémont’s August 1861 proclamation on emancipation had been rejected. But three months later in his State of the Union address, Lincoln indicated that confiscated slaves would become free. After Appomattox, Lincoln called for limited Black suffrage.
The chapter on Lincoln as commander-in-chief quotes T. Harry Williams on Abraham Lincoln’s having been “a great natural strategist, and a better one than any of his generals.” McPherson only demurs on Lincoln’s being called a “natural,” which appears to be a reasonable objection, given the learning curve that the president and his generals confronted. Unfortunately, McPherson embraces Henry Halleck’s biased attack on Union volunteer officers, which unfairly demeaned generals Lew Wallace and John McClernand. Both were much better than the reputations assigned them by many historians. In a different vein, the accusation of Abraham Lincoln’s “procrastination” in Grant’s Memoirs “does not ring entirely true,” according to McPherson. George McClellan, meanwhile, is disparaged for wanting only to preserve the Union early in the war, although this was the majority view as well as Lincoln’s stand at the time.
In summary, despite some quibbles, The War That Forged a Nation: Why the Civil War Still Matters contains a weath of oft-overlooked information and solid conclusions concerning many salient facets of the American Civil War. It is highly recommended.
The book’s first chapter cogently details many of the effects of the Civil War and its aftermath in a discussion of the war’s meaning. It notes how most slave states seceded “not only” because of the threat to slavery, but also they were “looking forward to the expansion of a dynamic, independent slave-holding polity,” in parts of Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. The next chapter, on the coming of the Civil War, quotes Ulysses S. Grant’s Personal Memoirs on the great injustice of the Mexican War. A review of the Papers of U.S. Grant, however, indicates that Grant exaggerated the intensity of his feelings, if he didn’t fabricate them long afterward. McPherson confirms that President James K. Polk insisted on the Rio Grande and not the Nueces as Texas’ southern border; this historically incorrect claim permitted Polk to instigate what was clearly an unjust war.
After a discourse on the concept of a just war, a succeeding chapter describes the extent of the death and destruction of the American Civil War, and utilizes the recently revised estimate of 750,000 military deaths for the two opponents. McPherson notes how historian Mark Neely rightly challenged the notion of the conflict as “total war”; it was not a war “without any scruples or limitations.” But the assertion that large portions of the South looked “like bombed-out cities of Europe and Japan” goes somewhat too far. Recounting the atrocities on both sides, McPherson is also on strong ground when he challenges Neely’s minimization of deaths on both sides of the conflict.
The chapter on American navies and British neutrality contains a very good explanation of the legality and effectiveness of the Union’s blockade of southern ports. It might have benefitted from a discussion of Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles’ recommendation for a simple closure of these ports. In another chapter, on two Union admirals: David G. Farragut and Samuel F. DuPont, Farragut is given his just due. His operations “did indeed entitle him to virtually equal status with Grant and Sherman in winning the war.” “The Union navy deserves more credit for Northern victory than it has traditionally received.” McPherson quotes Grant’s Memoirs on how, without the navy, the Vicksburg “campaign could not have been made.” General Grant, though, frequently minimized the navy’s worth, in general, and the very effective naval blockade, in particular. He personally denigrated Gideon Welles. But it was Welles who plucked Farragut from far down the seniority list, betting on his loyalty and ability. McPherson concluded that, “Rarely in the history of naval warfare has a gamble paid off so handsomely.”
A chapter on how did freedom come, details how slaves liberated themselves, but it mentions the sentiment that Lincoln “never understood or supported” emancipation, and he “did not intend for the [emancipation proclamation] to free a single Negro.” In several chapters concerning the American president, McPherson accurately observed, it seems, that “no one deserved more credit for the [military] victory than Abraham Lincoln.” A chapter that speaks of “Lincoln, Slavery and Freedmen” describes how General John Frémont’s August 1861 proclamation on emancipation had been rejected. But three months later in his State of the Union address, Lincoln indicated that confiscated slaves would become free. After Appomattox, Lincoln called for limited Black suffrage.
The chapter on Lincoln as commander-in-chief quotes T. Harry Williams on Abraham Lincoln’s having been “a great natural strategist, and a better one than any of his generals.” McPherson only demurs on Lincoln’s being called a “natural,” which appears to be a reasonable objection, given the learning curve that the president and his generals confronted. Unfortunately, McPherson embraces Henry Halleck’s biased attack on Union volunteer officers, which unfairly demeaned generals Lew Wallace and John McClernand. Both were much better than the reputations assigned them by many historians. In a different vein, the accusation of Abraham Lincoln’s “procrastination” in Grant’s Memoirs “does not ring entirely true,” according to McPherson. George McClellan, meanwhile, is disparaged for wanting only to preserve the Union early in the war, although this was the majority view as well as Lincoln’s stand at the time.
In summary, despite some quibbles, The War That Forged a Nation: Why the Civil War Still Matters contains a weath of oft-overlooked information and solid conclusions concerning many salient facets of the American Civil War. It is highly recommended.
May 20, 2018
A historical look at how the Civil War helped to shape the country's war policy, politics, borders, ideology of civic responsibility and civic virtue, and even the culture in America today. Be cautioned that a more appropriate title might be “James M. McPherson’s Greatest Hits” given the quantity of reprinted material. In fact, the book is merely a collection of his essays already available elsewhere. Of the 12 chapters in the book, 5 are dedicated to his published reviews of other authors’ works and 6 are previously published essays of McPherson’s own hand, leaving only one newly-penned chapter. That aside, I cannot discount the amount of research that went into the essays nor the fact that the material, coming from such a trusted historian as McPherson, is both relevant and educational. Even still, I found the writing to be a bit dry and I was confused by the author’s approach. Including his own essays to highlight his thesis is one matter, but to incorporate his critiques of other authors is quite another. It is as though the intent behind the book wasn’t to introduce new findings or fresh insight, but rather to further humiliate others for their inadequate research or faulty theories. To put it simply, in ‘setting the record straight,’ McPherson alienated me, as his writing came across as self-aggrandizement.
Why does the Civil War still matter? Other than public interest driving book sales, well, McPherson never explicitly states his reasoning. But, history when superimposed with current events presents a solid clue. As a reader, though, I couldn’t help but feeling cheated that McPherson didn’t fulfill the promise of what is expected from such a title and even less gratified the content was rehashed and contained nothing unique. Surely, we can expect more from such a renowned historian, can’t we?
Why does the Civil War still matter? Other than public interest driving book sales, well, McPherson never explicitly states his reasoning. But, history when superimposed with current events presents a solid clue. As a reader, though, I couldn’t help but feeling cheated that McPherson didn’t fulfill the promise of what is expected from such a title and even less gratified the content was rehashed and contained nothing unique. Surely, we can expect more from such a renowned historian, can’t we?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 146 reviews