What do you think?
Rate this book
Civil War by Other Means: America’s Long and Unfinished Fight for Democracy
The Civil War may have ended on the battlefield, but the fight for equality never did
In 1865, the Confederacy was comprehensively defeated, its economy shattered, its leaders in exile or in jail. Yet in the years that followed, Lincoln’s vision of a genuinely united country never took root. Apart from a few brief months, when the presence of the Union army in the South proved liberating for newly freed Black Americans, the military victory was squandered. Old white supremacist efforts returned, more ferocious than before.
In Civil War by Other Means , Jeremi Suri shows how resistance to a more equal Union began immediately. From the first postwar riots to the return of Confederate exiles, to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, to the highly contested and consequential election of 1876, Suri explores the conflicts and questions Americans wrestled with as competing visions of democracy, race, and freedom came to a vicious breaking point.
What emerges is a vivid and at times unsettling portrait of a country striving to rebuild itself, but unable to compromise on or adhere to the most basic democratic tenets. What should have been a moment of national renewal was ultimately wasted, with reverberations still felt today. The recent shocks to American democracy are rooted in this forgotten, urgent history.
In 1865, the Confederacy was comprehensively defeated, its economy shattered, its leaders in exile or in jail. Yet in the years that followed, Lincoln’s vision of a genuinely united country never took root. Apart from a few brief months, when the presence of the Union army in the South proved liberating for newly freed Black Americans, the military victory was squandered. Old white supremacist efforts returned, more ferocious than before.
In Civil War by Other Means , Jeremi Suri shows how resistance to a more equal Union began immediately. From the first postwar riots to the return of Confederate exiles, to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, to the highly contested and consequential election of 1876, Suri explores the conflicts and questions Americans wrestled with as competing visions of democracy, race, and freedom came to a vicious breaking point.
What emerges is a vivid and at times unsettling portrait of a country striving to rebuild itself, but unable to compromise on or adhere to the most basic democratic tenets. What should have been a moment of national renewal was ultimately wasted, with reverberations still felt today. The recent shocks to American democracy are rooted in this forgotten, urgent history.
320 pages, Hardcover
Published October 18, 2022
47 people are currently reading
552 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 - 30 of 49 reviews
November 21, 2023
America’s refusal to be honest with our history is a large reason why we have many of the problems we have today. Our contemporary ignorance of the two decades after the Civil War is what contributes to this refusal.
The story we tell ourselves is that the North won the war, slavery ended and America, blessed by God, continued on an upward climb of progress. Of course, the “we” in that last sentence is those of us - white, relatively wealthy - who benefit from this story. At least, it’s the story I learned in school. It’s the story too many people I know still believe.
Questioning this story is frowned upon. It’s odd though, as those who benefit from the history have convinced themselves they live in an eternal present. To them, there is no history. We are where we are because of our success and hard work. They contrast their hard work with those lazy people who want a government handout. But if you point out that their parents or grandparents benefited from government handouts, they attack you. It’s either ignorance to admit they benefited (and as Matthew Desmond argues in his book Poverty, still do) from government handouts or a refusal to admit it because then they might have to be sympathetic to those they look down on.
There is so much in this book, and I’ve read a few books on this time period recently so it is starting to run together. The simple lesson is, since we do not learn from our history we are repeating it.
“The election of 1876 was a continuation of the Civil War, fought in the streets, voting booths, and legislatures of the states. The election manifested the divergent multiracial and white supremacist visions of American democracy. It exacerbated divisions and resentments. There is no evidence any significant group of voters changed their minds. (That rarely happens in elections.) Neither party offered new or exciting ideas. The creativity came in finding ways to attack the other side and spread fear.”
This could be the election of 2016, 2020 or 2024.
“Although Democrats criticized U.S. government intervention in their region, they still wanted resources from the U.S. Treasury. They demanded extensive federal subsidies to help white communities improve their conditions. Claims about “states’ rights” were really calls for more public resources, not less, but without federal conditions attached. Then and now, the loudest critics of “big government” were often the recipients of the most benefits.”
You could substitute Republicans for Democrats here. Republicans are known for arguing against help from the federal government, even as it is blue states (such as Kentucky) who receive the most help.
We could go on, talking about wealthy tycoons taking advantage of cheap labor. Or how riots are bad when it’s black people while ignoring how whites exerted control over the south for decades through riots and lynching.
All in all, this quote sums it up:
“Historical ignorance confers power on those who benefit from continuing to keep certain groups down. The mighty and insecure cling to ignorance for this reason. That was true in the decades after Appomattox, as it is also true in the early twenty-first century. How else can we explain the popular desire to glorify the past and censor discussion of injustices? How else can we explain the push to tell a whiter history at a time when the country is more diverse than ever before? The history of hate and violence is dangerous for those who are fighting to hoard power against the claims of rising, multiracial citizens” (339).
If we refuse to learn and change, we are headed for more violence and another insurrection.
“The beginnings of the insurrection at the Capitol started much earlier, in the years after the Confederacy was defeated but remained alive in the imaginations of the dispossessed. The two decades after Robert E. Lee’s surrender were years when the seeds of voter suppression, segregation, and vigilantism were planted. This book is about those beginnings—the history of the two decades after Appomattox, when some Americans tried to build a multiracial nation and others refused” (17).
The story we tell ourselves is that the North won the war, slavery ended and America, blessed by God, continued on an upward climb of progress. Of course, the “we” in that last sentence is those of us - white, relatively wealthy - who benefit from this story. At least, it’s the story I learned in school. It’s the story too many people I know still believe.
Questioning this story is frowned upon. It’s odd though, as those who benefit from the history have convinced themselves they live in an eternal present. To them, there is no history. We are where we are because of our success and hard work. They contrast their hard work with those lazy people who want a government handout. But if you point out that their parents or grandparents benefited from government handouts, they attack you. It’s either ignorance to admit they benefited (and as Matthew Desmond argues in his book Poverty, still do) from government handouts or a refusal to admit it because then they might have to be sympathetic to those they look down on.
There is so much in this book, and I’ve read a few books on this time period recently so it is starting to run together. The simple lesson is, since we do not learn from our history we are repeating it.
“The election of 1876 was a continuation of the Civil War, fought in the streets, voting booths, and legislatures of the states. The election manifested the divergent multiracial and white supremacist visions of American democracy. It exacerbated divisions and resentments. There is no evidence any significant group of voters changed their minds. (That rarely happens in elections.) Neither party offered new or exciting ideas. The creativity came in finding ways to attack the other side and spread fear.”
This could be the election of 2016, 2020 or 2024.
“Although Democrats criticized U.S. government intervention in their region, they still wanted resources from the U.S. Treasury. They demanded extensive federal subsidies to help white communities improve their conditions. Claims about “states’ rights” were really calls for more public resources, not less, but without federal conditions attached. Then and now, the loudest critics of “big government” were often the recipients of the most benefits.”
You could substitute Republicans for Democrats here. Republicans are known for arguing against help from the federal government, even as it is blue states (such as Kentucky) who receive the most help.
We could go on, talking about wealthy tycoons taking advantage of cheap labor. Or how riots are bad when it’s black people while ignoring how whites exerted control over the south for decades through riots and lynching.
All in all, this quote sums it up:
“Historical ignorance confers power on those who benefit from continuing to keep certain groups down. The mighty and insecure cling to ignorance for this reason. That was true in the decades after Appomattox, as it is also true in the early twenty-first century. How else can we explain the popular desire to glorify the past and censor discussion of injustices? How else can we explain the push to tell a whiter history at a time when the country is more diverse than ever before? The history of hate and violence is dangerous for those who are fighting to hoard power against the claims of rising, multiracial citizens” (339).
If we refuse to learn and change, we are headed for more violence and another insurrection.
“The beginnings of the insurrection at the Capitol started much earlier, in the years after the Confederacy was defeated but remained alive in the imaginations of the dispossessed. The two decades after Robert E. Lee’s surrender were years when the seeds of voter suppression, segregation, and vigilantism were planted. This book is about those beginnings—the history of the two decades after Appomattox, when some Americans tried to build a multiracial nation and others refused” (17).
February 21, 2023
We cannot erase the past, but we can adjust our present to the lessons history teaches. Instead of denying or condemning old offenses, we should seek to understand them. We must not allow injustices to recur out of ignorance or wishful thinking.
January 12, 2023
I wish I'd read this in high school or at least college! It was such an eye opener of American politics and why the south is the way it is today.
March 14, 2023
4.5 stars
In Civil War by Other Means, Jeremi Suri, shows how the victory of the Union was never secure and the resistance to Reconstruction began immediately. After the Civil War four million slaves became citizens - 179,00 blacks – many former slaves were in the Union army.
Slavery gave white men wealth, and it gave them status. They were “white” because they ruled dark-skinned people: they were “men” because they used violence for personal gain. Slavery was deeply embedded in every part of Southern life – farming, housekeeping, child rearing, and, of course, sex. White men were dominant because they had blacks to control. White women were sophisticated and dignified because they ordered black to do the chores. White supremacy was central to personal identity, wealth, and status. Taking away slavery suffocated traditional Southern society.
There were 4 million landless, uneducated, and impoverished former slaves that had to support themselves from hostile white crowds. Two decades following the Civil War – the Union army was the biggest employer for blacks in the U.S. Ironically, one of the most authoritarian organizations in the U.S., the military was the freest institution for former slaves.
Abraham Lincoln had a huge job ahead of him on how to bring equality to the newly 4 million freed slaves after the end of the Civil War, known as Reconstruction. Unfortunately, 6 days apart from Robert E Lee’s surrender, Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. The southern view was that John Wilkes was a victim, not the villain. His grave is a shrine in Baltimore today.
We will never know how much a difference Lincoln could have made. What we do know is that he had Andrew Johnson as his Vice President. Lincoln might have chosen him as token Democratic support. Lincoln assured members of Congress that he would have no influence on policy. He was to be seen as a symbol of national unity. Andrew Johnson might have been the worse President in U.S. History if you believe in all men are created equal.
Andrew Johnson was a slave holder. The only Senator from South to stand by Union. He was not for advancement of black’s rights after the Civil War. For Johnson slave emancipation was the end of change, not the beginning. His most consistent goal was to make certain that the white men were still masters in the South. He rejected every action that might help blacks. He ordered decommissioning of black soldiers from the Union Army and to acquire land. Johnson amplified Southern fears that black voters would use ballots to gain control over public offices and law enforcement. He did everything he could to prevent blacks from voting, and he sometimes encouraged violence with hateful rhetoric. His real purpose was to restore white dominance in the South after the end of slavery, and was determined to reverse the Republican victory in the Civil War.
After Lincoln’s death – The Republican party was anti-slavery and anti-confederate, but never committed to the welfare of former slaves. But they were so disgusted by Johnson that they wanted to impeach him. Johnson’s impeachment vote was 25 guilty – 19 – Not guilty. One vote shy of the 2/3 majority. Johnson bribed Edmond Russ of Kansas to change his vote and it worked.
Following Johnson’s presidency in 1869 was Ulysses S. Grant. In Suri’s book, Grant comes off better than anyone else during Reconstruction. Ulysses S. Grant by the end of 1867 was one of the most powerful figures in the South. A consistent defender of federal law against white resistance. In 1870, Grant passed the 15th amendment allowing black men to vote. Women were still not allowed to vote till 1920.
There was unspeakable white mob violence against black people trying to advance themselves in anyway, so Grant sent in the U.S. army to help protect former slaves and enforce the new law of the land. During reconstruction no other institution protected blacks freedom more than the US army.
By 1872, the railroads, factories, and banks dominated the Republican party, not the small town professionals and shopkeepers of Lincoln’s time. Expanding capitalism now mattered more than defending the multiracial democracy Grant had fought to create. It seemed to work in some parts of the South for a while.
Mark Twain chastised Lincoln’s Republican party of free labor transformed into a party of wealthy industry one decade later. Grant recognized the problem, but could do little about it. The popular determination to defend white privilege in the South and the increasing eagerness to get rich in the North suffocated remaining sentiments for racial justice. Grant could no longer motivate his own troops.
Under the attack for the economic collapse caused by the railroad industry in 1873, and evidence of corruption among those close to him, Grant disengaged. He had few major initiatives in his second term. He was largely silent on civil rights. Grant was in a catch 22. For proponents of multiracial democracy, he did too little, and for defenders of white supremacy, he meddled too much.
Rutherford Hayes succeeded Grant as President in the closest election ever. He compromised withdrawing US army forces out of the South (A big thing Grant did) in hopes it could bring peace. Hayes believed if the North could refrain its instinct to intervene, couldn’t the South restrain its impulse to exclude. How naïve is that?
Hayes moderation was exploited by Democrats and rejected by Democrats. Violence and voter suppression increased in the South under his watch.
Haye’s presidency is overlooked because he accomplished so little. His signature move was the withdrawal of Union forces from the South – a colossal mistake. He was a well-intentioned caretaker for a divided democracy. He was a wrong man at the wrong time.
James Garfield was the next President. Garfield was the last President for more than 50 years to condemn the denial of freedom to nonwhite citizens. He called it an evil and a crime. He was assassinated by a delusional nut. Chester Arthur was the 2nd VP in 16 years to succeed a slain President. In a historical tragic bit of trivia, Lincoln’s eldest son Robert was present of all 3 assassinations – his father’s, Garfield, and William McKinley.
President Grant proved an ardent defender of civil rights laws, and his use of military occupation largely worked against rising white violence. However, time, expense, political fatigue, and economic panic fed growing indifference in the North. With no popular base to support them, the gains of Reconstruction teetered on collapse.
Southern black codes still did not guarantee the right to vote, work, marry, own property, or live in a particular place. Federal courts did not intervene till a century later.
Robert E Lee surrendered but refused to accept Norther Authority. Lee told Grant that the South is a big country and that he might have to march over it 3 to 4 times before the war ended entirely. Union supporters wanted stability and opportunity, not continued bloodshed to stamp out white resistance. I can’t help but wonder if Grant took Lee up on his offer, and the victorious U.S. army stomped out the resistant confederates like Americans did to the Native Americans. Imagine allowing all the free blacks to now have residence in all the plantations and homes they were slaves at. Imagine that they would be able to vote, have bank accounts, own property go to school, have no fear of the KKK, have a majority of positions in the state's government, be allowed the privilege of the 1st and 2nd amendment. Maybe all the white supremacists would be killed or just flee. Imagine if the South was mostly a free black society. What could we get done as a country?
The years between Lincoln’s and Garfield’s assassinations (1865-1881) were the moment when these warring perspectives on democracy were planted firmly in the soil of the modern American nation. The country became more multiracial and more white supremacist at the same time. Suri presents a thorough account of how the hope of Reconstruction and a unified nation quickly disintegrated.
Ignorance of the past has perpetuated hateful attitudes and hidden continued injustices. Today voter suppression is accepted as a normal part of politics that goes back to the times after Lincoln’s assassination.
Americans’ collective memory of the Civil War, as evidenced through the January 6th Riot, continues to influence contemporary society, politics, and culture. Suri’s important study of the two decades following the military conflict is necessary for how we teach and remember the Civil War.
In Civil War by Other Means, Jeremi Suri, shows how the victory of the Union was never secure and the resistance to Reconstruction began immediately. After the Civil War four million slaves became citizens - 179,00 blacks – many former slaves were in the Union army.
Slavery gave white men wealth, and it gave them status. They were “white” because they ruled dark-skinned people: they were “men” because they used violence for personal gain. Slavery was deeply embedded in every part of Southern life – farming, housekeeping, child rearing, and, of course, sex. White men were dominant because they had blacks to control. White women were sophisticated and dignified because they ordered black to do the chores. White supremacy was central to personal identity, wealth, and status. Taking away slavery suffocated traditional Southern society.
There were 4 million landless, uneducated, and impoverished former slaves that had to support themselves from hostile white crowds. Two decades following the Civil War – the Union army was the biggest employer for blacks in the U.S. Ironically, one of the most authoritarian organizations in the U.S., the military was the freest institution for former slaves.
Abraham Lincoln had a huge job ahead of him on how to bring equality to the newly 4 million freed slaves after the end of the Civil War, known as Reconstruction. Unfortunately, 6 days apart from Robert E Lee’s surrender, Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. The southern view was that John Wilkes was a victim, not the villain. His grave is a shrine in Baltimore today.
We will never know how much a difference Lincoln could have made. What we do know is that he had Andrew Johnson as his Vice President. Lincoln might have chosen him as token Democratic support. Lincoln assured members of Congress that he would have no influence on policy. He was to be seen as a symbol of national unity. Andrew Johnson might have been the worse President in U.S. History if you believe in all men are created equal.
Andrew Johnson was a slave holder. The only Senator from South to stand by Union. He was not for advancement of black’s rights after the Civil War. For Johnson slave emancipation was the end of change, not the beginning. His most consistent goal was to make certain that the white men were still masters in the South. He rejected every action that might help blacks. He ordered decommissioning of black soldiers from the Union Army and to acquire land. Johnson amplified Southern fears that black voters would use ballots to gain control over public offices and law enforcement. He did everything he could to prevent blacks from voting, and he sometimes encouraged violence with hateful rhetoric. His real purpose was to restore white dominance in the South after the end of slavery, and was determined to reverse the Republican victory in the Civil War.
After Lincoln’s death – The Republican party was anti-slavery and anti-confederate, but never committed to the welfare of former slaves. But they were so disgusted by Johnson that they wanted to impeach him. Johnson’s impeachment vote was 25 guilty – 19 – Not guilty. One vote shy of the 2/3 majority. Johnson bribed Edmond Russ of Kansas to change his vote and it worked.
Following Johnson’s presidency in 1869 was Ulysses S. Grant. In Suri’s book, Grant comes off better than anyone else during Reconstruction. Ulysses S. Grant by the end of 1867 was one of the most powerful figures in the South. A consistent defender of federal law against white resistance. In 1870, Grant passed the 15th amendment allowing black men to vote. Women were still not allowed to vote till 1920.
There was unspeakable white mob violence against black people trying to advance themselves in anyway, so Grant sent in the U.S. army to help protect former slaves and enforce the new law of the land. During reconstruction no other institution protected blacks freedom more than the US army.
By 1872, the railroads, factories, and banks dominated the Republican party, not the small town professionals and shopkeepers of Lincoln’s time. Expanding capitalism now mattered more than defending the multiracial democracy Grant had fought to create. It seemed to work in some parts of the South for a while.
Mark Twain chastised Lincoln’s Republican party of free labor transformed into a party of wealthy industry one decade later. Grant recognized the problem, but could do little about it. The popular determination to defend white privilege in the South and the increasing eagerness to get rich in the North suffocated remaining sentiments for racial justice. Grant could no longer motivate his own troops.
Under the attack for the economic collapse caused by the railroad industry in 1873, and evidence of corruption among those close to him, Grant disengaged. He had few major initiatives in his second term. He was largely silent on civil rights. Grant was in a catch 22. For proponents of multiracial democracy, he did too little, and for defenders of white supremacy, he meddled too much.
Rutherford Hayes succeeded Grant as President in the closest election ever. He compromised withdrawing US army forces out of the South (A big thing Grant did) in hopes it could bring peace. Hayes believed if the North could refrain its instinct to intervene, couldn’t the South restrain its impulse to exclude. How naïve is that?
Hayes moderation was exploited by Democrats and rejected by Democrats. Violence and voter suppression increased in the South under his watch.
Haye’s presidency is overlooked because he accomplished so little. His signature move was the withdrawal of Union forces from the South – a colossal mistake. He was a well-intentioned caretaker for a divided democracy. He was a wrong man at the wrong time.
James Garfield was the next President. Garfield was the last President for more than 50 years to condemn the denial of freedom to nonwhite citizens. He called it an evil and a crime. He was assassinated by a delusional nut. Chester Arthur was the 2nd VP in 16 years to succeed a slain President. In a historical tragic bit of trivia, Lincoln’s eldest son Robert was present of all 3 assassinations – his father’s, Garfield, and William McKinley.
President Grant proved an ardent defender of civil rights laws, and his use of military occupation largely worked against rising white violence. However, time, expense, political fatigue, and economic panic fed growing indifference in the North. With no popular base to support them, the gains of Reconstruction teetered on collapse.
Southern black codes still did not guarantee the right to vote, work, marry, own property, or live in a particular place. Federal courts did not intervene till a century later.
Robert E Lee surrendered but refused to accept Norther Authority. Lee told Grant that the South is a big country and that he might have to march over it 3 to 4 times before the war ended entirely. Union supporters wanted stability and opportunity, not continued bloodshed to stamp out white resistance. I can’t help but wonder if Grant took Lee up on his offer, and the victorious U.S. army stomped out the resistant confederates like Americans did to the Native Americans. Imagine allowing all the free blacks to now have residence in all the plantations and homes they were slaves at. Imagine that they would be able to vote, have bank accounts, own property go to school, have no fear of the KKK, have a majority of positions in the state's government, be allowed the privilege of the 1st and 2nd amendment. Maybe all the white supremacists would be killed or just flee. Imagine if the South was mostly a free black society. What could we get done as a country?
The years between Lincoln’s and Garfield’s assassinations (1865-1881) were the moment when these warring perspectives on democracy were planted firmly in the soil of the modern American nation. The country became more multiracial and more white supremacist at the same time. Suri presents a thorough account of how the hope of Reconstruction and a unified nation quickly disintegrated.
Ignorance of the past has perpetuated hateful attitudes and hidden continued injustices. Today voter suppression is accepted as a normal part of politics that goes back to the times after Lincoln’s assassination.
Americans’ collective memory of the Civil War, as evidenced through the January 6th Riot, continues to influence contemporary society, politics, and culture. Suri’s important study of the two decades following the military conflict is necessary for how we teach and remember the Civil War.
July 15, 2022
In Civil War by Other Means: America's Long and Unfinished Fight for Democracy Jeremi Suri offers a detailed history of the period just after the Civil War and illustrates how the missed opportunity then has plagued the nation ever since.
A lot of what is in here isn't so much new as it is presented in a cohesive narrative with a focus on what was done to either try to build a better democracy or, conversely, keep a grossly dysfunctional democracy. As is painfully obvious today, the dysfunctionality has been winning the day.
While some things, whether we knew the details or not, won't surprise us, it is some of the facts we have overlooked that shed a great deal of light. For instance, many people either didn't know or had forgotten that the Republican party of Lincoln was also a response by whites to what they perceived to be a threat to their way of life. They weren't so much anti-slavery as they were anti-slaveowners. So in the aftermath of the Civil War, it wasn't such a big shift for them to become just as openly racist as the old Confederates. A hundred and fifty years later and it is even more evident that the differences were never as great as some have believed.
We never even started out living up to the ideals put on paper. So it isn't much of a surprise that even when new legislation is enacted that is supposed to improve democracy it is circumvented by those who feel threatened, who see life as a zero-sum game. From slavery to Jim Crow to white supremacist paramilitary units called police, there has been little de facto change, and we are perilously close to losing anything that resembles a democracy thanks to our inability over many generations to live up to ideals we spout but don't live.
This is an accessible book that is well-researched and has substantial notes for anyone wanting to do more research. The roots of our current problems long pre-date the Civil War, but this was the ideal chance to make things right, and we didn't. If you want to understand what exactly we failed to do and why, this is the book for you.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
A lot of what is in here isn't so much new as it is presented in a cohesive narrative with a focus on what was done to either try to build a better democracy or, conversely, keep a grossly dysfunctional democracy. As is painfully obvious today, the dysfunctionality has been winning the day.
While some things, whether we knew the details or not, won't surprise us, it is some of the facts we have overlooked that shed a great deal of light. For instance, many people either didn't know or had forgotten that the Republican party of Lincoln was also a response by whites to what they perceived to be a threat to their way of life. They weren't so much anti-slavery as they were anti-slaveowners. So in the aftermath of the Civil War, it wasn't such a big shift for them to become just as openly racist as the old Confederates. A hundred and fifty years later and it is even more evident that the differences were never as great as some have believed.
We never even started out living up to the ideals put on paper. So it isn't much of a surprise that even when new legislation is enacted that is supposed to improve democracy it is circumvented by those who feel threatened, who see life as a zero-sum game. From slavery to Jim Crow to white supremacist paramilitary units called police, there has been little de facto change, and we are perilously close to losing anything that resembles a democracy thanks to our inability over many generations to live up to ideals we spout but don't live.
This is an accessible book that is well-researched and has substantial notes for anyone wanting to do more research. The roots of our current problems long pre-date the Civil War, but this was the ideal chance to make things right, and we didn't. If you want to understand what exactly we failed to do and why, this is the book for you.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
May 27, 2022
I was really interested in reading this book, as someone who has read a lot of Suri's other work. It definitely was in a different vein than what he has done before. The strength of this book is that it bridges a gap between popular history and academic work. Suri's story may not be anything new to someone who know a lot of history and certainly won't appeal to academics, but this is an example of history that is written by a professional for people who don't want to read academic monographs.
It's easily accessible and told through the lens of many historical figures. It incorporates all of the major events of Reconstruction and after, and will help Americans refresh their historical knowledge of the time period.
It also is a great example of how history can still be made relevant today, to help us understand our nation and our own conflicts. The first few pages? What a great hook. No, history doesn't repeat itself, but to understand where we are we can look backwards for the path.
It's easily accessible and told through the lens of many historical figures. It incorporates all of the major events of Reconstruction and after, and will help Americans refresh their historical knowledge of the time period.
It also is a great example of how history can still be made relevant today, to help us understand our nation and our own conflicts. The first few pages? What a great hook. No, history doesn't repeat itself, but to understand where we are we can look backwards for the path.
November 13, 2022
This is an excellent book looking over the Reconstruction era - and beyond. It reminded me of "But There Was No Peace" by George Rable - a personal favorite of this era, in that it argues there was so much resistance down South to put up any real change to southern society. For Suri, the end of the Civil War didn't end the Civil War. As the title flatly states, Confederates tried to preserve white supremacy by any means that they could.
The heart of the book is an overview of the traditional years of Reconstruction: 1865-1877. Here we see the South resist change, find a friend in Andrew Johnson, only to have the rise of Radical Republicans emerge. For Suri, the attempt to impeach Andrew Johnson wasn't just some power play by Congress, but a legitimate battle over the role the two branches had in society, and if the president could intentionally not enforce the law (which is supposed to be his job, and something Johnson was refusing the do with regard to civil rights legislation).
U. S. Grant comes off fairly well, as he showed a sincere commitment to perserving black rights and a belief in black citizenship, but he is far from a believer in racial equality. After the Panic of 1873, and the 1874 midterms and the rise of his administration's corruption scandals, Grant retreated mostly wholesale from the field of enforcing black rights. Violence picks up even after the KKK was busted up. 1872 would be the freest election in US history up to that point, but immediately things went backwards. A white man called a red shirt man as well just be a Klansmen.
Hayes wins the election of 1877 - sorta. He gets his post by compromise and tries to feel-good the South into accepting him. He realizes midway through his presidency that this won't work, but by then the Democrats have full control of Congress. It's all Hayes can do to repeatedly veto legislation designed to completly abrogate any/all federal oversight of elections. He's very despondent by the end of his administration. Garfield wins power in 1880 and gives many speeches with clear and forthright calls to enforce civil rights for black Americans - accompanied by zero action. He's shot and killed, and with his demise, the GOP retreats even rhetorically from any concern for black rights.
The book also has an excellent chapter on Confederates who fled to Mexico with the end of the war in hopes of helping Emperor Maximillan there. That didn't work out, but many eventually came back and became southern heroes, even national figures. Jo Shelby rejoined the army and led forces that putdown the Pullman strike in 1894. One politician helped rob black Texans of their voting rights. It's an aspect of the era I've never seen addressed.
At the start and end of the book, Suri compares it to modern times. Clearly , the January 6 Insurrection helped inspire this book, doubly so the asshole carrying the Confederate battle flag into the Capitol Building. He notes several issues, ranging from the patently undemocratic nature of the electoral college to gerrymandering that affect us even now.
Any issues? At times it felt like Suri pressed his points a bit far. For instance, he has the GOP backing off dang near entirely in 1881 on civil rights, but they still pushed for things like the Force Bill as late as 1890. In his conclusion, he makes a link between then and now when it came to gerrymandering - but I don't recall that topic coming up in the book when it discussed the 19th century.
Still, the pros massively outweight any limitations. Excellent book.
The heart of the book is an overview of the traditional years of Reconstruction: 1865-1877. Here we see the South resist change, find a friend in Andrew Johnson, only to have the rise of Radical Republicans emerge. For Suri, the attempt to impeach Andrew Johnson wasn't just some power play by Congress, but a legitimate battle over the role the two branches had in society, and if the president could intentionally not enforce the law (which is supposed to be his job, and something Johnson was refusing the do with regard to civil rights legislation).
U. S. Grant comes off fairly well, as he showed a sincere commitment to perserving black rights and a belief in black citizenship, but he is far from a believer in racial equality. After the Panic of 1873, and the 1874 midterms and the rise of his administration's corruption scandals, Grant retreated mostly wholesale from the field of enforcing black rights. Violence picks up even after the KKK was busted up. 1872 would be the freest election in US history up to that point, but immediately things went backwards. A white man called a red shirt man as well just be a Klansmen.
Hayes wins the election of 1877 - sorta. He gets his post by compromise and tries to feel-good the South into accepting him. He realizes midway through his presidency that this won't work, but by then the Democrats have full control of Congress. It's all Hayes can do to repeatedly veto legislation designed to completly abrogate any/all federal oversight of elections. He's very despondent by the end of his administration. Garfield wins power in 1880 and gives many speeches with clear and forthright calls to enforce civil rights for black Americans - accompanied by zero action. He's shot and killed, and with his demise, the GOP retreats even rhetorically from any concern for black rights.
The book also has an excellent chapter on Confederates who fled to Mexico with the end of the war in hopes of helping Emperor Maximillan there. That didn't work out, but many eventually came back and became southern heroes, even national figures. Jo Shelby rejoined the army and led forces that putdown the Pullman strike in 1894. One politician helped rob black Texans of their voting rights. It's an aspect of the era I've never seen addressed.
At the start and end of the book, Suri compares it to modern times. Clearly , the January 6 Insurrection helped inspire this book, doubly so the asshole carrying the Confederate battle flag into the Capitol Building. He notes several issues, ranging from the patently undemocratic nature of the electoral college to gerrymandering that affect us even now.
Any issues? At times it felt like Suri pressed his points a bit far. For instance, he has the GOP backing off dang near entirely in 1881 on civil rights, but they still pushed for things like the Force Bill as late as 1890. In his conclusion, he makes a link between then and now when it came to gerrymandering - but I don't recall that topic coming up in the book when it discussed the 19th century.
Still, the pros massively outweight any limitations. Excellent book.
July 11, 2025
BLUF: Very easy, approachable and short read on how we went from victory at Appomattox to the Jim Crow South.
Longer Review.
How did we get to where we are - after the passage of three new constitutional amendments, with hopes for civil rights the highest they had ever been, to basically 75 more years of a brutally racist South which systemically denied the basic rights of Black people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Two words: bad leaders. At best, presidents after Lincoln they were wildly inconsistent in their commitment to civil rights. At worst, they were outwardly hostile to the Second American Revolution.
Johnson didn’t believe in the new rules or vision for America. He pardoned unrepentant confederates, adding legitimacy to their cause and making them local celebrities. He frustrated civil rights’ enforcement whenever he could, and narrowly avoided impeachment for failing to enforce the law by crude bribery.
Grant, the legendary Union general, largely meant well, and was moderately successful, but was plagued by scandal and a corrupt administration. Moreover, northern citizens wanted to “move on” from the occupation of the south, especially after the promised prosperity of heavy industry gave way to the Gilded Age, where some people made out like bandits while most workers worked long hours and never got ahead.
However, it was deal which ended the 1876 election would haunt the U.S., and Black aspirations for equality, for generations.
evidenced by the flailing naïveté of the Hayes Administration - which barely made its way into the White House after a contested election. He tried at first to reconcile and compromise with the Southern elites, refusing to use the military to enforce civil rights law (though more than happy to deploy it in the North on behalf of the industrial elite against striking workers).
The Garfield Administration talked tough - but that was about it. No actual policy to address the systemic disenfranchisement of Black people in the South. Nor even aid to help more desperate plans to resettle Black people in Liberia. Could not pursue needed civil service reforms due to obstinance within his own party for the patronage system. And was tragically assassinated by a lunatic convinced that it if he killed Garfield would land him a role in the VP’s administration.
Chester Arthur, Garfield’s successor, was not only ill-prepared to inherit the presidency, but was also not a free-labor Republican and much more friendly to big business. Any principled opposition to Democrats in favor of civil rights, outside of rhetoric, would not be found - and it would largely be this way into the beginning of the 20th Century for Republicans. Garfield was the last Republican president to condemn the denial of Black rights in strong terms. The South continued to utilize violence, intimidation and legal suppression against Black people - electing leaders for their ability to do just that - while the rest of the country simply moved on (though Teddy Roosevelt was a mild challenge to this trend with respect to civil rights).
Ultimately, it was the liberal impulse to never use the bully pulpit to convince people of one’s’ political and moral convictions, and to compromise and sue for peace above justice - as opposed to generating support for your ideas, and meeting the enemy on their terms and defeating them - which did the deed. A true reconstruction was only possible through systematically disempowering the old elite through force.
Longer Review.
How did we get to where we are - after the passage of three new constitutional amendments, with hopes for civil rights the highest they had ever been, to basically 75 more years of a brutally racist South which systemically denied the basic rights of Black people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Two words: bad leaders. At best, presidents after Lincoln they were wildly inconsistent in their commitment to civil rights. At worst, they were outwardly hostile to the Second American Revolution.
Johnson didn’t believe in the new rules or vision for America. He pardoned unrepentant confederates, adding legitimacy to their cause and making them local celebrities. He frustrated civil rights’ enforcement whenever he could, and narrowly avoided impeachment for failing to enforce the law by crude bribery.
Grant, the legendary Union general, largely meant well, and was moderately successful, but was plagued by scandal and a corrupt administration. Moreover, northern citizens wanted to “move on” from the occupation of the south, especially after the promised prosperity of heavy industry gave way to the Gilded Age, where some people made out like bandits while most workers worked long hours and never got ahead.
However, it was deal which ended the 1876 election would haunt the U.S., and Black aspirations for equality, for generations.
evidenced by the flailing naïveté of the Hayes Administration - which barely made its way into the White House after a contested election. He tried at first to reconcile and compromise with the Southern elites, refusing to use the military to enforce civil rights law (though more than happy to deploy it in the North on behalf of the industrial elite against striking workers).
The Garfield Administration talked tough - but that was about it. No actual policy to address the systemic disenfranchisement of Black people in the South. Nor even aid to help more desperate plans to resettle Black people in Liberia. Could not pursue needed civil service reforms due to obstinance within his own party for the patronage system. And was tragically assassinated by a lunatic convinced that it if he killed Garfield would land him a role in the VP’s administration.
Chester Arthur, Garfield’s successor, was not only ill-prepared to inherit the presidency, but was also not a free-labor Republican and much more friendly to big business. Any principled opposition to Democrats in favor of civil rights, outside of rhetoric, would not be found - and it would largely be this way into the beginning of the 20th Century for Republicans. Garfield was the last Republican president to condemn the denial of Black rights in strong terms. The South continued to utilize violence, intimidation and legal suppression against Black people - electing leaders for their ability to do just that - while the rest of the country simply moved on (though Teddy Roosevelt was a mild challenge to this trend with respect to civil rights).
Ultimately, it was the liberal impulse to never use the bully pulpit to convince people of one’s’ political and moral convictions, and to compromise and sue for peace above justice - as opposed to generating support for your ideas, and meeting the enemy on their terms and defeating them - which did the deed. A true reconstruction was only possible through systematically disempowering the old elite through force.
July 16, 2023
If I could, I'd give this book a rating of 3.5, but it doesn't reach the four star level in my estimation. I bought the book after I watched the author discuss it on a Gilder-Lehrman book talk, and unfortunately it didn't live up to my expectations. To be sure, there are some very interesting, and often unique, sections, most notably the opening chapter about the Confederate army that fled to Mexico in 1865, hoping to establish a presence in that country until they (in their minds) felt that it was time to cross the border again and "liberate" the Confederacy. Needless to say, that plan died quickly. The section on the contested election of 1876 was fascinating in the way that it presented many similarities to the recent 2020 controversies. When Trump discussed having the military seize voting boxes, did he know that President Grant had used the army in 1876 to try to bring about a semblance of election security? (Of course, one big difference was that Grant was not trying to get himself reelected.) The book does a nice job of showing the frustrations that Rutherford Hayes (the 1876 winner) had in his one term as president, as well as the promise that the Garfield presidency held out before his assassination. But I was hoping that the book would trace the divisions, tensions, and issues that led to the Civil War, right through the 20th century into the current political world. Aside from a short "Legacy" chapter, it did not do this. Instead, the book was primarily a book about Reconstruction and the fifteen year post-war period during which South kept up a persistent, insidious campaign to regain control of their political life and to return the former slaves to a social and economic status that mimicked their lives prior to the Civil War. There are plenty of other books that I have read that do just a good of a job of describing this picture, both "big" (Eric Foner's epic "Reconstruction") and "small" ("The Day Freedom Died" and "Wilmington's Lie" being two examples). I also think that the author pushed too hard to bring Lincoln's and Garfield's assassinations into the same "box." To be sure, Garfield was interested in looking after the interest of African-Americans in the South more seriously than any president since Lincoln, but Lincoln's murder was definitely a continuation of the war, while Garfield was killed by a whack-job named Guiteau, who thought he was going to get an ambassadorship for his efforts. The book ends with a series of recommendations about how the American political system needs reforming, but that section seemed like a pointless exercise, as it would take a series of constitutional amendments to make these changes, which is simply not realistic.
February 21, 2023
The Civil War was truly the seminal event in American History. The war itself decided the fate of slavery forever. The war also left open who would rule the country after the North and South were reunited. Jeremi Suri, professor at the University of Texas at Austin, has written a volume that attempts to answer that very question. Civil War by Other Means: America’s Long and Unfinished Fight for Democracy (New York: Public Affairs Books, 2022, 322 pgs, $30 US, $38 CAN.), chronicles the fight to finally end the Civil War in American Democracy. Suri describes the era of Reconstruction (1865-1877) as an era of instability and dissension that has not officially ended.
Reconstruction was intended to bring the country back together and to restore the image of American democracy to Europe and the rest of the world. Professor Suri writes that Reconstruction evolved into a danger-filled time in which white Southerners were essentially given free reign to move the old Confederacy back to the antebellum world. Politicians such as Lincoln and Grant were idealistic in their plans for the postwar countryside. The assassination of Lincoln, the corruption of Grant’s second term, the assassination of James Garfield, all contributed to a reconstruction and post-war period that left African-Americans in a state that was almost a return to slavery. Suri writes that Reconstruction was a missed opportunity to change the course of American society that has left subsequent generations still trying to find a positive end to the Civil War.
Professor Suri has written an excellent book. Civil War by Other Means should be an essential piece of any Civil War era reading list or college history course. It is easily readable, flows well, and is very engaging. Civil War historians, scholars of race and society, and general readers will do well to think about the themes that Professor Suri presents in this book. Civil War by Other Means should be a central piece of the researcher’s Civil War tool-kit. It is a great little book that can serve as material for answering that most important question: Who won the Civil war?
Matt
Reconstruction was intended to bring the country back together and to restore the image of American democracy to Europe and the rest of the world. Professor Suri writes that Reconstruction evolved into a danger-filled time in which white Southerners were essentially given free reign to move the old Confederacy back to the antebellum world. Politicians such as Lincoln and Grant were idealistic in their plans for the postwar countryside. The assassination of Lincoln, the corruption of Grant’s second term, the assassination of James Garfield, all contributed to a reconstruction and post-war period that left African-Americans in a state that was almost a return to slavery. Suri writes that Reconstruction was a missed opportunity to change the course of American society that has left subsequent generations still trying to find a positive end to the Civil War.
Professor Suri has written an excellent book. Civil War by Other Means should be an essential piece of any Civil War era reading list or college history course. It is easily readable, flows well, and is very engaging. Civil War historians, scholars of race and society, and general readers will do well to think about the themes that Professor Suri presents in this book. Civil War by Other Means should be a central piece of the researcher’s Civil War tool-kit. It is a great little book that can serve as material for answering that most important question: Who won the Civil war?
Matt
November 19, 2025
I was worried at first, that Civil War by Other Means would be more about presenting historical parallels between our time and the Reconstruction Era after the Civil War. Instead I was pleasantly surprised to find an informative historical description of the Reconstruction Era, from Lincoln's death to Garfield's, with a focus on the South's resilience in enforcing their notions of white supremacy. I was cautious at first that Suri might be misappropriating the term "white supremacy," but I think he made a strong case for its use, especially since it was a term used by contemporaries at the time to justify subjugating recently freed slaves.
As we know, Reconstruction was a failure, so the narrative of this novel is a depressing one, where Southern whites reclaim control of the South after the North loses the will to force racial equality. Instead of making a direct one to one comparison, Suri is more interested in trying to take some lessons from the failure of Reconstruction (while still having contemporary politics clearly in mind). And the recommendations presented seems quite reasonable, if not obvious, such as having a constitutional amendment guaranteeing all citizens the right to vote, or eliminating the electoral college.
Ultimately though, it was the historical retelling by Suri that I found the most interesting, and I learned quite a bit from this book about the Reconstruction. He also does a good job at providing historical context and alternative perspectives, so that this book did not read as a condemnation of any one politician or party, but as a tragic retelling of a historical period which ought not to be so quickly forgotten.
As we know, Reconstruction was a failure, so the narrative of this novel is a depressing one, where Southern whites reclaim control of the South after the North loses the will to force racial equality. Instead of making a direct one to one comparison, Suri is more interested in trying to take some lessons from the failure of Reconstruction (while still having contemporary politics clearly in mind). And the recommendations presented seems quite reasonable, if not obvious, such as having a constitutional amendment guaranteeing all citizens the right to vote, or eliminating the electoral college.
Ultimately though, it was the historical retelling by Suri that I found the most interesting, and I learned quite a bit from this book about the Reconstruction. He also does a good job at providing historical context and alternative perspectives, so that this book did not read as a condemnation of any one politician or party, but as a tragic retelling of a historical period which ought not to be so quickly forgotten.
December 20, 2022
Readers interested in contemplating the comparisons between the post-American Civil War Reconstruction period and the contested 2020 elections will enjoy this book. Specifically, the author draws parallels between the emergence of the late eighteenth-century Klu Klux Klan and the rise of twenty-first-century white supremacist groups. Unfortunately, while these comparisons are introduced and could be interesting, they are not thoroughly examined outside the introduction and conclusion sections, leaving the reader to form important parallel observations.
On the other hand, readers interested in an overview of the brutal thirty years after the civil war will find considerable value in Suri's monograph. Suri's engaging writing style is pleasing and readable by scholars and the general public. He employs many specific examples to humanize the violent and fearful reconstruction period, which helps communicates the troubling situation for the recently freed enslaved people. This is a history that all Americans should get to know.
Despite a well-written re-telling of the reconstruction period, I would have hoped to find either new information or perspectives on the reconstruction period or more detailed comparisons with this period and the events leading up to and after the 2020 elections. The author provides neither. However, Suri's book is an engaging read which I recommend to readers wanting to learn more about the post-Civil War period and to think more expansively about today's issues.
On the other hand, readers interested in an overview of the brutal thirty years after the civil war will find considerable value in Suri's monograph. Suri's engaging writing style is pleasing and readable by scholars and the general public. He employs many specific examples to humanize the violent and fearful reconstruction period, which helps communicates the troubling situation for the recently freed enslaved people. This is a history that all Americans should get to know.
Despite a well-written re-telling of the reconstruction period, I would have hoped to find either new information or perspectives on the reconstruction period or more detailed comparisons with this period and the events leading up to and after the 2020 elections. The author provides neither. However, Suri's book is an engaging read which I recommend to readers wanting to learn more about the post-Civil War period and to think more expansively about today's issues.
July 25, 2023
Jeremi Suri sets the stage in this book by first outlining the events that took place after the 2020 election. After he discusses Trump's apprehension (put very lightly) to relinquish the most powerful seat of office in United States government, he explores the events following the Civil War. Suri's hypothesis is that the Civil War never really ended in the United States. Even after the structured conflict of the Civil War ended, America suffered from the idealogical warfare between the southern elite and post-abolitionsist Americans.
I have heard Jeremi Suri talk a bit about his opinions on the current state of affairs in the United States and how they relate to the late 19th century. He believes that the reason rebel or confederate idealogies have permeated throughout the United States history and still exist today is because they were not successfully and forcibly snuffed out after the end of the Civil War. The book further explores this belief. It's really interesting because I don't know if there is necessarily a right or wrong answer. The best and worst thing about the United States is that there is a freedom of political, and spiritual idealogy. How can we find a balance? Can we weed out the dangerous or corrupt beliefs without stomping on individual freedom? Would America have even been able to unite against external threats (WWI, WWII, etc.) had liberty in idealogy been jeopardized. I have no idea.
This book was really interesting and I would like to further explore some of Suri's other works.
I have heard Jeremi Suri talk a bit about his opinions on the current state of affairs in the United States and how they relate to the late 19th century. He believes that the reason rebel or confederate idealogies have permeated throughout the United States history and still exist today is because they were not successfully and forcibly snuffed out after the end of the Civil War. The book further explores this belief. It's really interesting because I don't know if there is necessarily a right or wrong answer. The best and worst thing about the United States is that there is a freedom of political, and spiritual idealogy. How can we find a balance? Can we weed out the dangerous or corrupt beliefs without stomping on individual freedom? Would America have even been able to unite against external threats (WWI, WWII, etc.) had liberty in idealogy been jeopardized. I have no idea.
This book was really interesting and I would like to further explore some of Suri's other works.
December 6, 2022
Civil War by Other Means: America’s Long and Unfinished Fight for Democracy by Jeremi Suri is the perfect book to help us understand our failures at creating a multi-racial democracy in the nineteenth century and how this has weakened and divided our nation. Jeremi Suri chronicles the events after the civil war, from Lincoln's assassination to Garfield's, and how they were a continuation of the war by other means.
I purchased a signed copy and watched a video presentation by Dr. Suri due to my membership at One Day University. Civil War by Other Means is a vivid and unsettling portrait of a country striving to rebuild itself but unable to compromise on or adhere to the most basic democratic tenets.
I highly recommend Civil War by Other Means: America's Long and Unfinished Fight for Democracy by Jeremi Suri.
In addition, the documentary, on Apple TV+, Lowndes County and the Road to Black Power is a companion piece that illustrates the continued failure to create a multi-racial democracy. Jeremi Suri makes a convincing case that the eternal struggle for democracy continues in our time.
I purchased a signed copy and watched a video presentation by Dr. Suri due to my membership at One Day University. Civil War by Other Means is a vivid and unsettling portrait of a country striving to rebuild itself but unable to compromise on or adhere to the most basic democratic tenets.
I highly recommend Civil War by Other Means: America's Long and Unfinished Fight for Democracy by Jeremi Suri.
In addition, the documentary, on Apple TV+, Lowndes County and the Road to Black Power is a companion piece that illustrates the continued failure to create a multi-racial democracy. Jeremi Suri makes a convincing case that the eternal struggle for democracy continues in our time.
February 12, 2024
This book should be read by everyone who cares about preserving our democracy and our country. We are an imperfect country and we have not honestly come to terms with our history. I wish I had read this in high school and I wish every single Congressperson and elected official should be required to read it. Will it change minds--probably not for some but for others it may shift their thinking and their actions in a way that as a country we can move to a more perfect democracy created for all--not just those who want to cling to a past of "white supremacy" and the idea that by holding people down they raise up. If we are teaching history classes that glorify the past and do not address the rotten roots that are still festering below the surface of our democracy then we are at risk of losing our democracy. Some of the author's ideas on how we move forward are right on--unfortunately by making these changes (i.e. get rid of gerrymandering; fair representation of all people in your district etc), those who most want to hang onto the past will lose some of their power. I am both heartened by this book as it exposes our past and ways to make our future better as well as disheartened as I read the news each day and know that we have a long way to go to achieve the changes needed for a more fair democracy.
October 19, 2022
Civil War By Other Means is the perfect name for such a great book. Any one of the topics touched on in this book could fall under that heading. From President Hayes is back room, hand shake election to the assassination of President Lincoln and then President Garfield all the way to the new deal. It seemed president Lincoln, got us on track but with his death went the dream of equality and happiness and prosperity for all. The chapters and subjects in this book differ but the overall message is clear. I think the author did a great job not only making the book interesting but spelling it out and lying the fax bear for everyone to see I know there will be people who disagreed with this book and I also know which side of the aisle they would stand in an election but let me be clear I am neither Republican or Democrat and fax don’t lie and this book is full of them. I thoroughly enjoyed this book without an intelligent smart advocate for fairness and a true democracy it will just keep going the way it has been. What a great book and what perfect timing. I received this book from Net Galley and the publisher but I am leaving this review voluntarily please forgive any mistakes as I am blind and dictate my review.
July 26, 2023
“If we want to escape the recurring patterns of civil war, we must dig up the roots to remove the rot. In particular, there are key parts of American political life that have long been rotting from neglect and misuse” (262)
If I had the opportunity to have my students read something over the summer, or as a part of our study on Reconstruction, this would be a definitive. Poignant, well-detailed and researched, Jeremi Suri tells the story of a time in American history when a divided nation sought reunification, only to discover itself unable and unwilling to seek unification after millions of formerly enslaved Black people were emancipated. Each chapter identified a different aspect of the tumultuous period following the U.S. Civil War and focused on an element important to understanding why division, fueled by white supremacy and racism, never allowed for a nation to come together. Filled with accounts from primary sources of newspapers, journal entries from leaders of the time and witness accounts from horrific, violent attacks, “Civil War by Other Means” clarifies how the Civil War led to another one over the fate of American democracy, which has yet to be fully resolved.
If I had the opportunity to have my students read something over the summer, or as a part of our study on Reconstruction, this would be a definitive. Poignant, well-detailed and researched, Jeremi Suri tells the story of a time in American history when a divided nation sought reunification, only to discover itself unable and unwilling to seek unification after millions of formerly enslaved Black people were emancipated. Each chapter identified a different aspect of the tumultuous period following the U.S. Civil War and focused on an element important to understanding why division, fueled by white supremacy and racism, never allowed for a nation to come together. Filled with accounts from primary sources of newspapers, journal entries from leaders of the time and witness accounts from horrific, violent attacks, “Civil War by Other Means” clarifies how the Civil War led to another one over the fate of American democracy, which has yet to be fully resolved.
November 24, 2023
What I admired about Suri's book is his attention to Mexico and the Confederate effort to carry on the rebellion from the other side of the border. Grant understood what Romero, the Mexican ambassador to the US kept telling Americans, that the Conservative monarchist rebellion in Mexico and the Confedrate slaveholders' rebellion in the US were integrally connected. Both rebelled against duly elected republican regimes. Both sought foreign allies. Now, after 1865, Maximilian was welcoming the defeated Confederates to settle in Mexico, bring their slaves, and carry on the war "by other means" from across the border. Now was the time, Grant realized in 1865, to squash that campaign before it festered into a long, expensive effort that would require a standing army on the US border. Suri puts that long forgotten chapter in US-Mexican history into a larger context by portraying it as the first stage in a sustained effort to realize what the Confederacy fought to achieve in the 1860s.
Well written, forcefully argued. This book should find a large audience among those interested in history and contemporary politics.
Well written, forcefully argued. This book should find a large audience among those interested in history and contemporary politics.
July 14, 2024
The author of this book, Jeremi Suri, is a UT history professor and spoke to our book club about this one. The topic is about how the Civil War did not really end in 1865. Because of the attitudes of the Southern politicians who managed to get back into Congress and the actions of Andrew Johnson as well, the hope many Black Americans had of true citizenship and freedom never materialized until the Civil Rights Movement. Suri goes into detail about the policies of each political party and while neither really addressed the true horror of slavery and the need for it to be abolished, the Republicans and Lincoln certainly seemed more compassionate and civic minded. However the southern politicians used every lever they had to undermine the actions of the Republican Congress. This book explains why Black Americans to this day are striving to attain the full equality that is promised to them in our Declaration of Independence.
This was a very well-researched and well written book. I have heard Jeremi Suri speak a couple of times and you can hear his voice through his writing.
This was a very well-researched and well written book. I have heard Jeremi Suri speak a couple of times and you can hear his voice through his writing.
October 20, 2022
A timely study of the problems of the American political system and the efforts to fix them after the Civil War. This is also a history of racial and class divisions, the bitter legacies of war, the uses of political violence, and the monumental work that was necessary to arrive at a just settlement against the will of the Southern white majority. By the mid-1870s, Democrats were in control of Congress again, and Reconstruction would be undone by the turn of the 20th century with the disenfranchisement of Black people. Suri's chapters on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson hold valuable lessons for modern Americans. Impeachment is a poor tool to rein in a rogue executive.
I read this book to interview the author for my podcast. I would recommend it for anyone interested in learning about this period, and then move onto to Eric Foner's still unparalleled "Reconstruction," published in 1988.
I read this book to interview the author for my podcast. I would recommend it for anyone interested in learning about this period, and then move onto to Eric Foner's still unparalleled "Reconstruction," published in 1988.
November 29, 2023
Civil War By Other Means
A Book Review
Today is the holiday of Juneteenth.
I read three books on the American Revolution over the winter; Rise to Rebellion and The Glorious Cause by Jeff Shaara; and Hamilton by Chernow; as well as a couple more I can't recall at the moment. Then, this spring, I decided to delve into the Civil War. I had avoided this period of history because of the brutality; I didn't think it would do much for my love of humankind … but I felt that this period held much to inform me about the present state of politics. So … I started with Gods and Generals, and The Killer Angels by the Shaaras, and The Battle Cry of Freedom by McPherson. I felt that I had gotten a feel for the politics of the times, most of all from Battle Cry of Freedom, which, in between descriptions of battles, spent most of it's 867 pages explaining the economics and politics of the times. At the end of that tome, I wanted to continue with the remainder of the Nineteenth Century, in order to see what longer term effects the war had on our country.
I was looking around at the library, and stumbled on a new book, entitled “Civil War By Other Means” by Jeremi Suri; ostensibly about the subject I was seeking to delve into. Suri is a history professor at the University of Texas at Austin. I was in a hurry, so I just snagged it and started reading when I got back home. The book basically picked up the timeline with Lincoln's assassination, which occurred only a week after Lee's surrender at Appomattox.
By way of background: feelings of loss well up inside me when I think of certain folks who met untimely ends; people as diverse as Jim Croce, John Lennon, JFK and RFK, my sister Babs, and, of course, Abe Lincoln. “Old Abe” worked so hard to keep our country in one piece, and he famously met with success. Nonetheless, the terrible costs of the war could be seen etched upon his face in photographs taken near the end. He apparently was just starting to unwind from that terrible burden when he decided to take Mary to Ford's Theater on the evening of April 14th, 1865 to see a relaxing comedy. Fate, in the form of a southern sympathizer, and extreme racist, named Booth, intervened.
His cruel assassination led to his vice president, Andrew Johnson, being sworn in to replace him. Johnson, a rare southerner who had remained loyal to the Union, was nonetheless a conservative who had no ambition to move forward with Abe's efforts to try and integrate recently freed African Americans into the mainstream of our citizenry. His placeholder presidency was succeeded by that of Ulysses Grant; who had every intention of finishing the vitally important task in moving our country into the place where “... all men are created equal...”.
After having led the Union to victory in the war, he had been crushed by the death of his former leader and friend, and this tough man wept openly at Lincolns funeral bier inside the new Capitol Rotunda. As a war hero, he was subsequently elevated to the presidency in place of Johnson, and had every intention of continuing Lincoln's attempts to protect the rights of freed slaves; and went about it using the army that still held him in high regard. He met with great success at first, until former rebels organized and fought back viciously and murderously through the auspices of the KKK and numerous other such groups. Horrendous massacres of innocent freedmen and their families were common, and the perpetrators were treated as heroes in most southern communities. Eventually, “Black Codes” legally quashed any chance that freedmen and their families could integrate into our economy and civil society. I remember these forms of discrimination well from my childhood a full one hundred years after the Civil War ended.
By no means had southerners given up simply by the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. The war, at least the non-military part, did not end with “the flip of a switch” at Appomattox. Hatred of the Union, and newly freed slaves, was very much alive and well, and, as we all know, still lives in the hearts of many to this very day. The “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy is still alive and well in the hearts of too many. This hatred can still be seen in the ranks of modern day Republicans; who, 158 years later, are still working hard to deny the vote to African Americans. The downtrodden state of many African Americans today is the direct legacy of this long period of denial of any chances to get educated, start businesses, build homes, hold political office, and participate in all of the activities of daily life that whites such as myself enjoyed in our lifetimes.
The scars of the Civil War live on in the memories of many descendants of “the Secesh”; a fact that is reflected in the name of Suri's book.
A note: the Republican Party, which rose with Lincoln, were dedicated to the ending of slavery; and the Democrats of the time were the party of the erstwhile Confederates. Over the course of the next 100 years, the roles of these parties would flip, culminating with the “Southern Strategy” of the Nixon Administration; which appealed, through dog whistles, to southern Democrats to come over to the new home for racists: today's Republican Party.
Note that not all Republicans are racists … far from it … but the party today does precious little to drive away that group, as well as other “deplorables” from their ranks. These days, not all Republicans are racists; but a big majority of racists are Republicans.
Author Suri marches through the presidencies subsequent to Grant's, and describes the sad history of racism in the South, and how they have kept the poison alive up to the present day. The book gives a continuous time line of the the dark side of race relations from the time of the Civil War to present day MAGA madness.
A Book Review
Today is the holiday of Juneteenth.
I read three books on the American Revolution over the winter; Rise to Rebellion and The Glorious Cause by Jeff Shaara; and Hamilton by Chernow; as well as a couple more I can't recall at the moment. Then, this spring, I decided to delve into the Civil War. I had avoided this period of history because of the brutality; I didn't think it would do much for my love of humankind … but I felt that this period held much to inform me about the present state of politics. So … I started with Gods and Generals, and The Killer Angels by the Shaaras, and The Battle Cry of Freedom by McPherson. I felt that I had gotten a feel for the politics of the times, most of all from Battle Cry of Freedom, which, in between descriptions of battles, spent most of it's 867 pages explaining the economics and politics of the times. At the end of that tome, I wanted to continue with the remainder of the Nineteenth Century, in order to see what longer term effects the war had on our country.
I was looking around at the library, and stumbled on a new book, entitled “Civil War By Other Means” by Jeremi Suri; ostensibly about the subject I was seeking to delve into. Suri is a history professor at the University of Texas at Austin. I was in a hurry, so I just snagged it and started reading when I got back home. The book basically picked up the timeline with Lincoln's assassination, which occurred only a week after Lee's surrender at Appomattox.
By way of background: feelings of loss well up inside me when I think of certain folks who met untimely ends; people as diverse as Jim Croce, John Lennon, JFK and RFK, my sister Babs, and, of course, Abe Lincoln. “Old Abe” worked so hard to keep our country in one piece, and he famously met with success. Nonetheless, the terrible costs of the war could be seen etched upon his face in photographs taken near the end. He apparently was just starting to unwind from that terrible burden when he decided to take Mary to Ford's Theater on the evening of April 14th, 1865 to see a relaxing comedy. Fate, in the form of a southern sympathizer, and extreme racist, named Booth, intervened.
His cruel assassination led to his vice president, Andrew Johnson, being sworn in to replace him. Johnson, a rare southerner who had remained loyal to the Union, was nonetheless a conservative who had no ambition to move forward with Abe's efforts to try and integrate recently freed African Americans into the mainstream of our citizenry. His placeholder presidency was succeeded by that of Ulysses Grant; who had every intention of finishing the vitally important task in moving our country into the place where “... all men are created equal...”.
After having led the Union to victory in the war, he had been crushed by the death of his former leader and friend, and this tough man wept openly at Lincolns funeral bier inside the new Capitol Rotunda. As a war hero, he was subsequently elevated to the presidency in place of Johnson, and had every intention of continuing Lincoln's attempts to protect the rights of freed slaves; and went about it using the army that still held him in high regard. He met with great success at first, until former rebels organized and fought back viciously and murderously through the auspices of the KKK and numerous other such groups. Horrendous massacres of innocent freedmen and their families were common, and the perpetrators were treated as heroes in most southern communities. Eventually, “Black Codes” legally quashed any chance that freedmen and their families could integrate into our economy and civil society. I remember these forms of discrimination well from my childhood a full one hundred years after the Civil War ended.
By no means had southerners given up simply by the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. The war, at least the non-military part, did not end with “the flip of a switch” at Appomattox. Hatred of the Union, and newly freed slaves, was very much alive and well, and, as we all know, still lives in the hearts of many to this very day. The “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy is still alive and well in the hearts of too many. This hatred can still be seen in the ranks of modern day Republicans; who, 158 years later, are still working hard to deny the vote to African Americans. The downtrodden state of many African Americans today is the direct legacy of this long period of denial of any chances to get educated, start businesses, build homes, hold political office, and participate in all of the activities of daily life that whites such as myself enjoyed in our lifetimes.
The scars of the Civil War live on in the memories of many descendants of “the Secesh”; a fact that is reflected in the name of Suri's book.
A note: the Republican Party, which rose with Lincoln, were dedicated to the ending of slavery; and the Democrats of the time were the party of the erstwhile Confederates. Over the course of the next 100 years, the roles of these parties would flip, culminating with the “Southern Strategy” of the Nixon Administration; which appealed, through dog whistles, to southern Democrats to come over to the new home for racists: today's Republican Party.
Note that not all Republicans are racists … far from it … but the party today does precious little to drive away that group, as well as other “deplorables” from their ranks. These days, not all Republicans are racists; but a big majority of racists are Republicans.
Author Suri marches through the presidencies subsequent to Grant's, and describes the sad history of racism in the South, and how they have kept the poison alive up to the present day. The book gives a continuous time line of the the dark side of race relations from the time of the Civil War to present day MAGA madness.
December 11, 2022
It was a pleasure to hear Dr. Jeremi Suri speak at our library about his book. He is engaging as a speaker and I wish I had had professors like him when I went to University. Is it too late at nearly 80?
Most of us know generally about the events and personalities of the Civil War. This book follows on with the consequences of the “abolition of slavery” that followed. Reconstruction in the Southern states was horrific, one might even say lawless.
Not only does the author explain the events and politics of the era, he also has several recommendations for today to make our country representative of the voters——us the people.
Most of us know generally about the events and personalities of the Civil War. This book follows on with the consequences of the “abolition of slavery” that followed. Reconstruction in the Southern states was horrific, one might even say lawless.
Not only does the author explain the events and politics of the era, he also has several recommendations for today to make our country representative of the voters——us the people.
August 21, 2024
If you’ve never studied the Reconstruction era of American history before, this book does a nice job filling it in for you, though not as well as Eric Foner, WEB DuBois, or John Hope Franklin. Suri does try to connect the era to today’s GOP shenanigans, so the book may feel more relevant than the aforementioned classics. I found that Suri offered opinions without evidence, which troubled me in spite of my agreement with his summaries and assertions. The writing seemed a bit sophomoric. Nevertheless, Americans today, especially those on the left, should know this history.
May 8, 2025
The author makes a convincing argument that a lot of current, societal angst and our dog-whistling MAGA president are not a sudden emergence, but an episode in a continuum of racism and general otherism unresolved since reverberating from the great cataclysm of The Civil War. A lot is covered here on the Lincoln assassination, the racist policies of Andrew Johnson and the the long struggle of Grant against a post-Confederate insurgency to be effectively lost in the dealmaking that got Hayes as president and the curtailed activities of Federal troops in protecting African-American voters.
December 16, 2022
Great examination of the shortfalls of Reconstruction era policies and promises made by five American presidents. Overall was a great refresher and deep-dive into various executive approaches to unsuccessfully diminishing the white supremacist legacy of the South. I originally picked this up because I felt like I was most unfamiliar with the Reconstruction era, so I found it to be a very informative read. Docking stars because it felt repetitive at times.
October 29, 2022
This book explores American history in the post civil war period from about 1865-1880 and examines the roots of decisions and institutions that continue to affect politics and race in the US to the present day. As always, Suri’s writing is clear and incisive. As a non-historian, I walked away with a greater appreciation of the influence of this era on our current world.
February 16, 2023
Took longer on this one than I was planning. Suri clearly has an agenda with this book, but unless you’re a proud boy or something the claim that slavery has had a lasting impact on American society should be an uncontroversial one.
March 23, 2023
Read this book if you really want to understand why the South has never let go of white supremacy and suppression. The stories of the immediate aftermath of the civil war and the failure of reconstruction are like reading stories of present-day efforts to 'take America back
April 1, 2023
"Two presidents and more than half a million people had died over the question of who should be included in America's democracy. After Garfield's death, it was a question that remained unresolved. The conflict over who should have say, and how, continued. It still does."
--Dr. Jeremi Suri
--Dr. Jeremi Suri
August 15, 2023
The parts of this book about the Hayes presidency and the liberal attitudes of Garfield were new to me. Rest of the book was good, but mostly a rehash of conventional story of civil war and reconstruction.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews