The Confederate Nation, 1861-1865

The New American Nation Series

by Emory M. Thomas

We have for years needed a serious, scholarly, readable work on the Confederate nation that rounds up modem scholarship and offers a fresh and detached view of the whole subject. This work fills that order admirably ... [Thomas] sensibly and deftly integrates the course of Southern military fortunes with the concerns that shaped them and were shaped by them. In doing so he also manages to convey a sense of how the war itself deteriorated from something spirited and gallant to something base and mean and modern on both sides.

Genres: History, Civil War, American History, American Civil War, War, Nonfiction, Politics

400 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1979

About the author

A noted scholar of the Civil War, Emory Thomas is a Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Georgia.

Reviews

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd long wanted to read a history of the American Civil War from the perspective of the Confederate States. Catton sometimes does sympathetically adopt the Southern perspective in his books, but his basic orientation is Unionist and his perspectives are usually those of the officers and troops. Thomas, however, gave me what I wanted. A retired University of Georgia professor, his vantage is definitely Southern.

Most interesting to me in this book was the discussion of how General Lee was successfully pushing for the enrolment of slaves into the Confederate forces during the siege of Richmond, adding that, on principle, all such soldiers should be recognized as citizens by war's end. As it happened, some were recruited, but none saw combat.

[Miszor · Rating 4 out of 5]

fajne

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book that seeks to be revisionist and write about the Confederacy from its own perspective and it has some positive aspects and some areas where it falls a bit short.  It should be noted that the author appears to approach history from a war & society or social historical perspective and his grasp of military history is a bit lacking.  Considering that the Confederacy was involved in war for its entire brief existence, the fact that the author manages to confuse the "hard war" that was waged on it increasingly after 1863 with a total war approach as one would find in World War II, for example, is lamentable but somewhat common.  Those readers who come to this book more familiar with the military history perspective of the Civil War may find the author's approach refreshing because of the author's approach to questions about the society of the Confederacy and not merely its military fortunes, although there was obviously a connection between the will of the Confederacy to exist as a separate nation and the fate of its armies, and the author is certainly not entirely ignorant of these connections even if his grasp of military history is not as sound as one would wish.

This work is about 300 pages or so and is divided into twelve chapters.  The author begins with a revised introduction as well as a preface.  After that there is a discussion of the social economy of the Old South and its difference from the social economy of the North because of slavery and the influence of plantation aristocracy on larger society (1).  The author then examines the cultural nationalism of the pre-Confederate South (2) before discussing the foundations of the Southern Nation in the activity of Southern politicians in the period after Lincoln's election but before his administration began (3).  The establishment and confirmation of the Confederacy is discussed after this, looking at Fort Sumter (4) and the victory at Bull Run (5).  After this the author discusses the confounding of southern nationalism through the defeats of early 1862 (6), which in the author's mind led to the start of a more revolutionary aspect of Southern nationalism (7), as well as to struggles in the messaging of Southern diplomatic efforts (8) with European nations.  This leads to a discussion of the development of the Confederate South (9) and to its existence at full tide between Antietam and Gettysburg (10).  After this the author then closes the book somewhat abruptly with a discussion of the disintegration of the Confederacy in 1864 (11) and its death in 1865 (12), after which the author provides the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, as well as a bibliography and index.

As might be expected for a work that discusses the Confederate side of the picture, there is a lot of focus on the lead-up to the Civil War and on the first couple years of the Civil War and comparatively little on the end of the Civil War.  This obviously creates a huge imbalance in the text in terms of the focus given to certain aspects.  The book spends more time on the period before Fort Sumter than it does on the period between Gettysburg and the aftermath of Appomattox.  That this is so is because the author sees the same sort of trends visible throughout the Confederacy in such varied campaigns as the Overland campaign, the siege of Petersburg, the Atlanta campaign, and Price's raid into Missouri, and the author is not inclined to discuss in detail the agonizing death throes of the Confederacy in the same way that someone who appreciates the Union victory would enjoy to savor it in its complete glory.  That said, even for this obviously biased reader, there was a modest enjoyment in the author's attempt to discuss the home front and the diplomatic aspects of the Confederacy in a way that many books tend to overlook or minimize.

[Kevin Sood · Rating 4 out of 5]

The only reason I decided to give this book four stars out of five is because Thomas makes no mention on how the Confederate government viewed the Emancipation Proclamation. It is often stated by historians that the Emancipation Proclamation was the death blow to the Southern economy. I would have liked to have seen how Thomas tackled this accusation by giving us the accounts of Confederate officials and how they perceived this attack on their peculiar institution. Was the Emancipation Proclamation something that was troublesome to the Southern war effort, or just another annoying fly? This was something I wish Thomas could have portrayed to his audience form the Southern point of view.

However, on that note. This book was extremely informative in giving us an accurate picture of the Confederate government and how it functioned during the Civil war. I always wondered if such a book existed that gave us the perception of the Civil War from the Confederate's point of view and how their nation functioned as an independent government for as long as it did. This book delivered on just that and I am very fortunate for having the opportunity to have read it. Great Book!

[Yann Selosse · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's more than an another history of the Civil War, it's a study of what formed the Southern particularism and then separatism and how it was confronted to reality in the form of the C.S.A. and war time policies.
Well written, sourced but a little bit short on some issues. For instance, the author kept repeating the Southern nationalism was dying in 1864/65 but does not develop much. How so? What's the public opinion? Examples? And so on, whereas the secession crisis and much other aspects are well explained, such as the international aspects and military activities consequences on public opinion.

Still a very good one. Must read for anyone interested in the Civil War or the C.S.A.

[Tom Glaser · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book tells the history of secession and the Civil War from a Confederate perspective. Lincoln and Washington DC are far in the background. The President is Jefferson Davis; the capital is Richmond. The book is something of an insider’s view of a society that sacrifices all its ideals in order to survive and still collapses at the end. It is by no means an apologia for the Confederacy. The author’s main proposition is that slavery drove the South to secede, but its very existence also doomed the Confederacy to failure.

In 1860 only a quarter of the South’s 1.5 million households owned any slaves at all. Just 3% had 20 or more slaves and less than 2/10 of one percent (2300) had 100 or more slaves. Although a large majority of Southerners were not slaveholders, and it was arguable that slaves depressed the value of free whites’ labor, the presence of 4 million black slaves in the South was a major factor in white social adhesion and racial solidarity. Slaveholders and non-slaveholders alike recognized that freeing a captive population of 4 million blacks would upend society. Their fear, perhaps more than the economic value of the slaves, made slavery the cornerstone of the Confederate States of America. Secession was a revolutionary act to preserve the status quo.

Revolutions rarely turn out the way their leaders plan. Southern secession was no exception. A political movement founded on the primacy of local government, the Confederacy ended up nationalizing industry, resorting to impressment, curtailing habeas corpus, raising taxes to confiscatory levels, and creating an enormous national debt. Two weeks before Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, President Davis and his War Office betrayed the CSA’s deepest core value and by fiat, not by congressional action, allowed emancipated blacks to serve as soldiers.

One of the most interesting parts of the book dealt with the constitutional convention in Montgomery, Alabama. The document that emerged was modeled on the US Constitution but had some notable features and omissions. It was silent on the question of nullification and secession. It banned the renewal of the African slave trade, but expressly protected slavery in the Confederacy and its territories. It retained the three-fifths clause about counting slaves for purposes of taxation and congressional representation. It also created a provision for free states to join the Confederacy. The preamble spoke of “sovereign and independent states” instead of “we, the people.” Unlike the US Constitution, it invoked “the favor of Almighty God.” The President, who was limited to a single six-year term, was empowered with a line-item veto.

Another interesting section dealt with the secession process. It was far from the lock-step consensus that I had imagined.

In case someone from the Harper Perennial imprint is reading this, I’d like to suggest that you upgrade the quality of the product you’re manufacturing. The font is painfully small and the paper feels like it’s been recycled half a dozen times.

[Herr · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are a lot of interesting facts in this book, and a lot of things that can be learned. At the top level, it was all about Economics (cotton, and the free slave labor that drove it, and the North's industrialists who wanted to control it). But why did so many people w no slaves sign up to die? The South was 99% British/Scottish descent, and Protestant. The North, primarily German, Irish and Italian. Differences like these as well as the need to protect family and farm against invasion was a key reason why yeoman signed to fight for the South (not slavery which is what we are taught to think in this liberal day we live in). The South was incredibly unprepared for war, but their reactive and innovative ability to get as prepared as they could be is worthy of study (it is interesting and fascinating that the army of an agrarian economy had more munitions than food when Lee surrendered). The speed and sophistication at which a government and military were formed in the South is interesting. Militarily, the South had far and away better leadership (the exception being Hood who was a tactical moron). There were some major tactical failures in the South (foreign recognition) politically, but the military tactics of the South are worthy of study. It wiped out a generation of men. The North would replenish with German and Poles through the 1890s. But the South never had white immigration and never recovered from the population loss. It came down to manpower and human resources.

[Griffin Demers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good book. I believe that it is a good introduction to a series of scholarly work that discusses the short life of the Confederacy. While it has some information on the military history; it seems to give a bird eye view of the logistics, the general emotions of the leaders/of the public, and the rise and the death of the confederacy. While a bit dated, I believe this book holds up — specifically in regards to rise of the “Lost Cause” narrative in his final conclusion.

The author lays out his thesis very well in the final pages of the book: “In the beginning the confederate South was a cause, the sanctification of the Old South status quo. Because the South began as a section instead of a nation, the cause of Southern nationalism most often found negative expression with the United States. In 1861, however, the cause was incarnate. The Confederacy was the political expression of Southern Nationalism and the logical extension of ante-bellum Southern Ideology…” (pg 297-300).

In conclusion, a good book to serve as an introduction to this topic; however— even today — work that details the confederacy in terms of its logistics are scarce. I advise to follow the authors footnotes/bibliography to serve yourself more.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

An unusual, though effective, book that focuses, not on the battles and generals of the Civil War, but more on exactly how the Confederacy's government functioned--or didn't function--in the four short years from 1861 to 1865. How the central government managed to keep going while prosecuting a war AND also struggling with the diverse and often competing (and squabbling) interests of the individual Confederate states. And done in a very readable style.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book is a history of the government CSA (but not necessarily from their point of view). The author does an admirable job describing the history of the government, conflicts within the Confederacy, and how to reacted to changing military fortunes. Could have used a bit more on the impact of the Emancipation Proclamation and of slaves who emancipated themselves, as well as what civilian life under Union occupation was like.

[Danielle · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was looking for a non fiction book that covered the civil war from the confederate end. This book fulfilled that need, it is very informative almost to a fault. The book could have been set up in a more user friendly manor by shortening or breaking up the chapters. Each chapter was very broad and made it a lot harder to keep attention.

[Grant Kaminer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely amazing. I’m not a Southern supporter by any means but this book did change my opinions slightly on the subject. The book is a more a political and social history of the CSA, rather than a military history of the American Civil War. While most history is written by the victors, this is a history written by the losers.

[Michael Lynch]

1

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good read, although an older book and one that you should already have fair knowledge on the Civil War already.

[Andy Johnston · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great political and economic history of the confederacy, lacks more social history particularly of black Americans and women

[Kevin Swift · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting read, not too heavy but well-informed and enough facts/information. Thoroughly enjoyed it.

[David Carniglia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Engaging history of the Confederacy. The author takes an objective look at the inherent contradictions and flaws of Confederate hopes and ideas. It's clear that 'states rights' and national supremacy are incompatible principles, which made almost every decision by Jefferson Davis's government controversial and subject to interpretation.

At the same time, the author points out the relatively efficient levels reached by several aspects of the Confederate state. The first notable achievement was to fashion a working government virtually overnight in early 1861; advantages in military leadership, and possibly also in morale, made for significant Confederate victories, particularly in the first year or two of the war. The pressure of having to make do with their weak industrial infrastructure led to innovative and resourceful methods for survival.

Among the paradoxes explored in this book were the romantic notion of chivalry and honor which clashed directly with the practical facts of the quickly-evolving nature of warfare. Behind the problems of particularism vs. centrality and heroism vs. machines stands the lives and status of the slaves. It's remarkable that Davis and others saw the need--though not until it was far too late-- to completely overturn the slave system, out of military necessity.

Of course, that would've been an impossible stance in 1861. After all, the war came about as a direct result of the sectional disagreement about the future of slavery (its expansion, if not its mere continuation). The Union position was also paradoxical on slavery. Lincoln did not begin by demanding Emancipation (publicly); like the envisioned Confederate plan in '65, the Proclamation was born of the Union's military necessity.

Having entered into war over the secession crisis, both sides ended up realizing that using the slaves as de facto allies would help their side win. Obviously, the South wanted it both ways: to keep the slaves in bondage to help the war effort (and, of course, to perpetuate the ante-bellum system), and, too late, to take slavery away, literally, and therefore strengthen their military position, while taking the Union's moral lightning rod away.

Baring the early adoption of some form of emancipation, or outright military victory, Davis attempted several strategic options: securing French and/or British support, a Russian or Mexican alliance, an alliance with the North against the puppet-Mexican government, etc. These ploys became more absurd as time went on. Nonetheless, soon after the war, the reunited United States did indeed help to kick the French out of Mexico.

The Confederacy had a mixed nature politically: the mere act of secession was in itself rebellious, but also revolutionary, even counter-revolutionary. In other words, the southern states wanted to keep their status quo, which, by European standards, was already outdated (Russia, the last 'civilized' country practicing a form of slavery, had emancipated its serfs in 1859). It was the Union that changed the most in the "four score and seven years" since the onset of the Revolution. By 1860, the industrial revolution had transformed large sectors of the northern states into a web of manufacturing centers, linked by railroads, interdependent on each other for raw materials and finished products, with a surplus for foreign trade.

In other words, the North was self-sufficient. The South was not. Relying on northern and foreign markets for its cotton and tobacco, and needing manufactured goods in return, it's difficult to see how the Confederacy could have been a viable State, even without the destructiveness of the Civil War.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

For those looking for a single volume on the confederacy’s view of the civil war from the view of the confederate government then look no further. Emory Thomas takes a look less at the military battles and more at the southern political will and organization that was built up around the southern states making up the Confederate States of America (CSA). The book looks at the domestic institutions such as local governments and the post office as well as the military structure of the departments of Army and Navy and Jefferson Davis attempt to be commander in chief until the confederate congress strips him of that power and puts Robert E Lee in charge. The foreign diplomacy of the confederate state department is also prevalent throughout the book and the European diplomacy efforts are well cataloged. The book goes into a significant amount of detail without being exhaustive. For those who are looking for something new and different on the scholarship of the Civil War this will be a great selection.

[Bill FromPA · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started reading this in order to provide a larger context for my reading of Mary Chesnut's Civil War, but found it a fascinating book in its own right. A look at the Confederacy which includes aspects of the nascent nation ignored or mentioned only briefly in most military history: such as the constitution, taxation, foreign policy, Indian policy, and the arts and intellectual life. The author's thesis is that a nation founded to preserve the status quo quickly found itself, as the result of war, revolutionizing the relationship of states as well as individual citizens to a central government. The Confederacy preceded the US in imposing a draft and passing an income tax. He also looks at the status of women and African-Americans in the Confederacy and the way in which these groups' rigidly defined antebellum roles were changed radically in the course of the war.

[Steven Voorhees · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Civil War is America's key domestic historical event. Only the Revolutionary War and independence from Britain match the civil war's importance. Many a book's been written about this patriotic mutiny that split the union. But a backbone of it, the Confederacy, hasn't been properly framed or analyzed. With Thomas' THE CONFEDERATE NATION, an analysis now exists. Taking an historiographical approach, Thomas spotlights the rebel nation's origins, sustenance and ultimate failure. Not just in military terms, but in human ones, too. The Confederacy's existence was actually a revolt of regional and philosophical identity. That's my takeaway from this fascinating book.

[AC · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fairly good, if rapid survey of the rise and fall of Confederate nationalism - marred by the author's enthusiasm for his subject(s). I was interested in this book because of the general theme of revolutionary nationalism that is developed. This next book, which I have not yet read, looks to be deeper and subtler:
http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Southern-N...

[Jay Perkins · Rating 3 out of 5]

With a focus on the origin and development of Confederate nationalism, Thomas explores the history of the short lived Southern experiment. Significantly, the south had to sacrifice many of her core antebellum, laissez-faire, values to create a slaveholders republic. Excellent but not exhaustive, it's an easy and surprisingly quick read.

[Rae · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pretty dry material I had to read for a Civil War class.

[Ben Rothman · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is really just a short battle history. Not worth the 34 cents I spent on Amazon.

[Evan Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent easy to read history of how the South became the Confederacy and in doing so, became a centralized almost socialist state.

[Sean Chick · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wsh I could rate it higher, but Thomas's military narrative was lacking and his style is dry. Otherwise, this is a book worth reading.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably more like 3.5 stars: good content, but not the best writing (a bit repetitive and he seemed to force in big words when they weren't necessary)

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent, dense history of what passed for Confederate nationalism and the fracturing of the Southern ideal under wartime pressure.

[Greg]

An enjoyable read.