Mr. Lincoln Goes to War

by William Marvel

"The Civil War's master historical detective" reveals how Lincoln blundered into war.

Stephen Sears has called William Marvel "the Civil War's master historical detective," and in this groundbreaking book Marvel investigates the mystery of how the war began, reconsidering the big Was it inevitable? He vividly recreates President Lincoln's first year in office, from his inauguration through the rising crisis of secession and the first several months of the war. Drawing on original sources and examining previously overlooked factors, Marvel leads the reader inexorably to the conclusion that Lincoln not only missed opportunities to avoid war but actually fanned the flames--and often acted unconstitutionally in prosecuting the war once it had begun. The story unfolds with Marvel's keen eye for the telling detail, on the battlefield as well as in the White House.

This is revisionist history at its best, as Marvel recreates the true story of our nation's greatest crisis--not sparing anyone, even Abraham Lincoln.

Genres: History, American Civil War, Civil War

387 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

William Marvel grew up on Davis Hill in South Conway, New Hampshire where he still lives. He has been writing about nineteenth-century American history for more than three decades.

Reviews

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Through a painstaking perusal of primary documents, Marvel shows how Lincoln instigated and poorly administered a war that left 600,000 Americans dead and another 400,000 severely maimed. This included the imprisonment of thousands without cause, the wanton destruction of newspapers, and the suspension of free elections---in states that remained loyal to the Union.

Marvel uses the case of Brigadier General Charles Stone (hardly the most egregious example) to highlight the terror and paranoia that pervaded the administration. Staunchly loyal, Stone was falsely accused of being a traitor and thrown into a military prison while politically-connected incompetents prospered.

Had the technologically-inferior South not won a series of spectacular, defensive battles and succumbed early in the war, history would regard Lincoln as a garden-variety dictator who forcibly preserved a union while enshrining the institution of slavery. It was only after successive failures did he ostensibly seek emancipation in the hopes of establishing a cause that would change the tide of the war.

[Dave Clark · Rating 3 out of 5]

William Marvel takes some fresh angles on the initiation and early execution of the Civil War. He examines the question of whether or not war was inevitable, and he argues that Union executed many unjustified abuses of power that were not constitutional. He highlights the early occupation of Baltimore, the turmoil that Lyon caused in Missouri, and the ruining of Brigadier General Stone in the aftermath of the Ball Buff fiasco. Marvel is highly critical of President Lincoln and his Cabinet. He argues that they were the primary parties who initiated the Civil War by pushing the Confederacy into a position as the aggressor at Fort Sumter and calling up 90-day troops immediately after shots were fired. He also argues that Lincoln and his Cabinet pressured military commanders to premature action resulting in early failures and a protracted war.
Marvel keeps his focus on the constitutional justification of the war, and in that light he argues that the war was not justified and that the actions Lincoln, his Cabinet, and the Radical Republicans in Congress were draconian and vindictive. He only touches on the issue of Emancipation and how it could have been a motivating factor for the Radical Republicans in Congress and among some members of Lincoln’s Cabinet. He fails to weigh slavery and Emancipation in balance with the constitutional questions he raises. He acknowledges this flaw briefly in his epilogue when he mentions the question of whether or not continued slavery for an undetermined period, or the hundreds of thousands of deaths from the war were worse. He never offers a firm argument behind either sides of that question, but he alludes to his preference to peace over the Civil War and its consequences throughout the book.

[Linda · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mr. Marvel is a revisionist military historian and possibly Southern.
He has a very critical view of Lincoln's first year in office when he
declared war and called up an army after the South fired on Fort Sumter.
He proffers many excuses as to why the South should have been allowed to
secede and ridicules Lincoln's call for union. I certainly don't agree with
this argument. I did find his description of battles not far from DC at Manassas
and Bull Run in 1861 quite interesting. I read a few Lincoln books every year,
but i don't like Marvel's viewpoint.

[Mark Pepin · Rating 4 out of 5]

You really have to pay attention as the names of the participants on what side they were on. After several books I've read on AL, first one that got into detail on his lack of support of habeas corpus, 1st, 3rd and 4th amendments. The imprisonment of anyone that "appeared " to support succession or even discussing. Author suggests that Lincoln had many opportunities to avoid war but used this politically by jailing many political foes therefore winning many additional seats in Congress. Next read will be another AL biography to see if more info can be found

[Roberto C. Armijo · Rating 4 out of 5]

For brevity to the ordinary readers, it definitely feels like parts of this book, particularly the latter chapters, ought to have been developed into a separate literary production. One can follow along with the arguments and events presented but it would be a studious task to the average reader. Even the usage of maps felt very underutilized, if not misplaced, when the description of battles were taken into account. It was an entertaining read but felt like it needed to be more refined.

[Leslie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Stopped reading. One would have to know the particulars of the Civil War military leaders on both sides as well as the geography to understand this book of the first year of the Civil War. I don’t and therefore didn’t continue reading this book.

[Isabel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Is it me or the contents of the book don't really correspond to the presentation?
As a French reader, I found it difficult to read this book.

[Vince · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much of the book covers the extra-Constitutional powers the Lincoln administration took upon itself in the first year of the war to limit dissention, especially in two of the three neutral states of Maryland and Missour, including closing down newspapers, stealing elections and cancelling habeas corpus. A compelling look at an otherwise underexamined aspect of the Lincoln administration, especially at the dawning of the War. A must read for anyone interested in examining the political side of the Civil War and its repercussions, at the time and for the future. Lincoln deserves much credit for restoring the Union as well as ending slavery (albeit belatedly), but the man was not a saint.

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very strange book. On the positive side, it does highlight some little covered political actions at the beginning of the war to prevent anti-war groups from gaining power, especially in Maryland. How ever, one gets the impression when reading this book that the author believes that Lincoln erred by not allowing the south to secede from the Union. While it can be logically argued that Lincoln and his advisers erred in many areas during this period, its impossible to believe that history would have been better served by allowing the union to dissolve and the perpetuation of slavery in the south.

[Monica Perez · Rating 3 out of 5]

it's very well written and objective to the point of being courageous but i cannot slog through the excruciating detail on every skirmish.

[Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not so much about Lincoln, it is a good lively recounting of battles in the first year, many of which took place with a couple dozen miles of where I live.