What do you think?
Rate this book
Littlefield History of the Civil War Era
A Contest of Civilizations: Exposing the Crisis of American Exceptionalism in the Civil War Era
Most mid-nineteenth-century Americans regarded the United States as an exceptional democratic republic that stood apart from a world seemingly riddled with revolutionary turmoil and aristocratic consolidation. Viewing themselves as distinct from and even superior to other societies, Americans considered their nation an unprecedented experiment in political moderation and constitutional democracy. But as abolitionism in England, economic unrest in Europe, and upheaval in the Caribbean and Latin America began to influence domestic affairs, the foundational ideas of national identity also faced new questions. And with the outbreak of civil war, as two rival governments each claimed the mantle of civilized democracy, the United States' claim to unique standing in the community of nations dissolved into crisis. Could the Union chart a distinct course in human affairs when slaveholders, abolitionists, free people of color, and enslaved African Americans all possessed irreconcilable definitions of nationhood?
In this sweeping history of political ideas, Andrew F. Lang reappraises the Civil War era as a crisis of American exceptionalism. Through this lens, Lang shows how the intellectual, political, and social ramifications of the war and its meaning rippled through the decades that followed, not only for the nation's own people but also in the ways the nation sought to redefine its place on the world stage.
In this sweeping history of political ideas, Andrew F. Lang reappraises the Civil War era as a crisis of American exceptionalism. Through this lens, Lang shows how the intellectual, political, and social ramifications of the war and its meaning rippled through the decades that followed, not only for the nation's own people but also in the ways the nation sought to redefine its place on the world stage.
568 pages, Hardcover
First published January 18, 2021
1 person is currently reading
73 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
March 3, 2025
As to why this work wound up going to the top of my TBR list at what is for me a fairly early stage, this might boil down to the promise of examining the unwritten rules of the game. That is to say, the conventions, traditions, and the standard operating procedures that make up a culture. Lang himself is not that impressed with presumptions of "exceptionalism," but is trying to tease out what these attitudes meant in practice back in the day.
In the section dealing with Antebellum America, the strongest part of this book, Lang gives one a sense of how the American polity truly bought into its sense of having a special dispensation, that could be easily lost, and which Americans were called upon to "represent." There is a distinct whiff of "colonial cringe" about all this. The problem becomes what happens when extremists begin to view your restrained political culture as simply something to take advantage of, and the unwritten rules lose their sway; the result is 1861 and all that.
Though I thought engaging with this book was not a waste of time, I have a hard time seeing who this work is really written for; probably not the average general reader. I have this image of a student late in the undergrad process strip-mining this book for useful insights in writing a paper, as is the way that a lot of academic writing gets consumed.
Speaking to what the general reader would get more out of, my suggestion would be Joanne Freeman's "Field of Blood," which examines the 19th-century culture of personal violence that came to permeate Capitol Hill, until it broke the wider political environment. I figure that I've read about thirty of the works that Lang cites, and can readily pick out another thirty that I might have considered reading at one point or another. This book didn't make Lang's bibliography, which is unfortunate, in that he is all about cutting through polite fictions.
Actual rating: 3.5.
In the section dealing with Antebellum America, the strongest part of this book, Lang gives one a sense of how the American polity truly bought into its sense of having a special dispensation, that could be easily lost, and which Americans were called upon to "represent." There is a distinct whiff of "colonial cringe" about all this. The problem becomes what happens when extremists begin to view your restrained political culture as simply something to take advantage of, and the unwritten rules lose their sway; the result is 1861 and all that.
Though I thought engaging with this book was not a waste of time, I have a hard time seeing who this work is really written for; probably not the average general reader. I have this image of a student late in the undergrad process strip-mining this book for useful insights in writing a paper, as is the way that a lot of academic writing gets consumed.
Speaking to what the general reader would get more out of, my suggestion would be Joanne Freeman's "Field of Blood," which examines the 19th-century culture of personal violence that came to permeate Capitol Hill, until it broke the wider political environment. I figure that I've read about thirty of the works that Lang cites, and can readily pick out another thirty that I might have considered reading at one point or another. This book didn't make Lang's bibliography, which is unfortunate, in that he is all about cutting through polite fictions.
Actual rating: 3.5.
December 11, 2023
An interesting take on the Civil War. I thought that the text wandered far at times from the "American Exceptionalism" thesis, but had some really interesting international connections, like connecting events in America to 1848 Revolutions, connecting US Civil War and early reconstruction to French involvement in Mexico, and Reconstruction to the attempt to annex the Dominican Republic.
September 1, 2025
This was a really, really good and compelling history of the Civil War era. Lang argues that the Civil War is best defined as the culmination of a struggle over American identity and exceptionalism in the early American Republic. Each side in the Civil War believed it was the true inheritor of the exceptional, providential mission of the US in the world. Each believed they were the soul of republican government, but they grew apart over time on what that meant. Northerners believed that slavery was ultimately incompatible with a republican society based in white free labor and hostility to aristocracy. Southerners believed that their slave system was a perfect hierarchy, rooted in biological fitness for certain roles, that enabled a selected class of people to live out republican government. Lang pays due attention to African-American intellectual history as well; black thinkers for the most part believed that America taking up its place as the world's bastion of republicanism required both racial egalitarianism and the destruction of slavery. These visions, as Lincoln and Seward argued, were basically incompatible, especially given the question of westward expansion.
The desire to save global republicanism provided the ideological fuel for saving the Union and fighting the Civil War, but Lang shows how it also constrained the North's willingness to remake the South. Government by military compulsion was anathema to republicanism, which made Reconstruction a temporary deviation that most Northerners rapidly lost patience with (although, obviously, not African-Americans). There are a lot of people now who argue that Reconstruction should have been pressed more aggressively or even permanently, but this really wasn't in the ideological cards at the time, at least among the people with enough power to make such decisions. This is ultimately a tragic outcome for a war that had to be fought.
This is an intellectual and political history primarily, so the lines between North and South are drawn a little more sharply than a social historian might (given, for example, the Unionists in the south and the difficulties in categorizing the border states). It is incredibly rich in its use of primary sources and its tracing of themes of republicanism throughout this time period.
A quick word to potential readers though: this book is very dense, and moves somewhat slowly. I think maybe 10% could have been weeded out . For example, there's a whole chapter on how a code of civilized warfare prevented the rise of a true "total war" during the Civil War. That felt like a separate article (which it is; it's another really good article by Lang), but it felt a little out of place. So it's not an easy book, but it's very rewarding and moving; I'm sure I'll use it often in my own teaching.
The desire to save global republicanism provided the ideological fuel for saving the Union and fighting the Civil War, but Lang shows how it also constrained the North's willingness to remake the South. Government by military compulsion was anathema to republicanism, which made Reconstruction a temporary deviation that most Northerners rapidly lost patience with (although, obviously, not African-Americans). There are a lot of people now who argue that Reconstruction should have been pressed more aggressively or even permanently, but this really wasn't in the ideological cards at the time, at least among the people with enough power to make such decisions. This is ultimately a tragic outcome for a war that had to be fought.
This is an intellectual and political history primarily, so the lines between North and South are drawn a little more sharply than a social historian might (given, for example, the Unionists in the south and the difficulties in categorizing the border states). It is incredibly rich in its use of primary sources and its tracing of themes of republicanism throughout this time period.
A quick word to potential readers though: this book is very dense, and moves somewhat slowly. I think maybe 10% could have been weeded out . For example, there's a whole chapter on how a code of civilized warfare prevented the rise of a true "total war" during the Civil War. That felt like a separate article (which it is; it's another really good article by Lang), but it felt a little out of place. So it's not an easy book, but it's very rewarding and moving; I'm sure I'll use it often in my own teaching.
June 26, 2025
This one takes a little while to get going and goes in a lot of different directions, but there's some really good analysis and arguments once the book gets into the meat of the Civil War and Reconstruction eras. Basically, Lang tries to show how both the Union and Confederacy justified their approach to the war and postwar settlements with regard to the idea of American democracy as exceptional when compared to unrest in Europe and Latin America, and how these ideas influenced each side's actions.
Some key ideas and arguments I found most interesting:
- How all sides used the idea of American exceptionalism to justify their methods, including African Americans, who saw the Constitution's guarantee of liberty as attainable, certainly moreso than say, Poles in Russia or Hungarians under the Habsburgs.
- How the Union effectively treated the Confederacy as a belligerent under the principles of "just war" while simultaneously refusing to accept its claims of being a separate nation. Lang also compares this racially to ghe conquest of the West - Unionists saw white southerners, even traitors, as deserving of leniency, while Natives were treated as savages not deserving of leniency.
- How the ideas of Union and limited government influenced the rise of the postwar Liberal Republicans and led to the demise of Reconstruction. Grant and his administration tried to balance the need to protect African American civil rights in the South with widespread fears that military presence in the South was too much like European standing armies and that attempts to put down Southern White Leagues with arms was too much like Latin American civil wars. Even though African Americans pushed back on these constituionalist arguments, it sped up the process of white Northerners frustration with the lack of progress in the South, which was then blamed on African Americans. The idea of an exceptional Union distinct from European monarchies and warring Latin American republics was incompatible with the methods needed to enforce civil rights for freedpeople in the South.
Requires significant background knowledge on the Civil War and Reconstruction eras but worth your time.
Some key ideas and arguments I found most interesting:
- How all sides used the idea of American exceptionalism to justify their methods, including African Americans, who saw the Constitution's guarantee of liberty as attainable, certainly moreso than say, Poles in Russia or Hungarians under the Habsburgs.
- How the Union effectively treated the Confederacy as a belligerent under the principles of "just war" while simultaneously refusing to accept its claims of being a separate nation. Lang also compares this racially to ghe conquest of the West - Unionists saw white southerners, even traitors, as deserving of leniency, while Natives were treated as savages not deserving of leniency.
- How the ideas of Union and limited government influenced the rise of the postwar Liberal Republicans and led to the demise of Reconstruction. Grant and his administration tried to balance the need to protect African American civil rights in the South with widespread fears that military presence in the South was too much like European standing armies and that attempts to put down Southern White Leagues with arms was too much like Latin American civil wars. Even though African Americans pushed back on these constituionalist arguments, it sped up the process of white Northerners frustration with the lack of progress in the South, which was then blamed on African Americans. The idea of an exceptional Union distinct from European monarchies and warring Latin American republics was incompatible with the methods needed to enforce civil rights for freedpeople in the South.
Requires significant background knowledge on the Civil War and Reconstruction eras but worth your time.
May 23, 2024
Dense but worthwhile look at national identity during the Civil War.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews