The American Civil War discussion

Eric Foner once said that in order to understand the Civil War, one must understand two principle questions:

1) Why did the South Seceded?
2) Why did the North respond the way it did?

I have read several books that attempt to tackle the issue of Disunion or the Path to the Civil War, but I have recently finished two books that compliment each other on these two questions.

1) Why did the South secede? Egerton’s Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War is an excellent treatise on the issue of secession. That book focuses on how, by 1860, secessionist had created an environment that ensured the South would secede. While Egerton’s book does not ignore the North, the focus is on the secession. (Since I've already posted my review on that book, I'm not going to restate it here.)

2) Why did the North respond the way it did? “Lincoln and the Decision for War” provides a very clear compliment to Egerton’s work. By itself, McClintock’s book probably does not deserve five stars. It leaves too many questions and rarely discusses events or reactions in the South. As a continuation of Egerton’s work, however, this book excels.

Many history books gloss over the period between the election of Lincoln and in Inauguration. They might trace the secession of the South and provide some information on the Buchanan’s inaction, the Star of the West fiasco, and Lincoln’s stump speeches as he travelled to Washington, but rarely do they analyze how the events in the north were shaped by what was going on elsewhere or how they lead to war.

McClintock discusses Buchanan and his inactivity. He presents the issues that Buchanan faced and how/why, he responded to secession the way he did. He presents the actions that Lincoln took---both publically and privately. Reading this book you realize that Lincoln was not as inactive as some authors portray, still he was not president and did not want to destroy his fragile coalition before he came to power.

The book discusses efforts in the House of Representatives, Congress, and by specific party leaders to attempt to hold the Union together. What debates raged in Congress? What compromises were floated in the attempt to preserve the Union? Who made those overtures? Why would Congress pass the (original) 13th amendment guaranteeing slavery and offer to admit New Mexico as a Slave State? Why were Northerners afraid of the Missouri Compromise guaranteeing slavery would be allowed in the bottom third of the country (hint---they predicted the annexation of Cuba, Mexico, and various Caribbean Islands).

Why the repulse of the “Star of the West” is not considered the first shots of the Civil War? Why didn’t that trigger an armed conflict? What forces were at play that prompted/forced Lincoln to create his ”team of rivals” as a Cabinet? Why did Seward famously exceed his authority in attempting to reconcile with the South before Sumter? Why didn’t Lincoln punish him? What role did Lincoln’s rival Stephen Douglas play when the South started to secede?

How and why did the North shift the focus away from the issue of slavery and on to that of preserving the Union? Who was the main advocate of that stance? How did anti-slavery Republicans and pro-southern Democrats forge an alliance to engage the South?

These questions are addressed in this book.

This book is NOT about the South or why the South seceded. The history is told almost entirely from the point of view of the North and if I had not just finished “Year of Meteors” I probably would have considered that a serious deficiency. As I immediately saw this book as a continuation of that book, I loved this one.

My other criticism is that while it is called “Lincoln and the Decision for War”, it really is not about Lincoln. Lincoln plays a minor role in the first 80% of the book. If you are looking for a biographical work on Lincoln, this book may disappoint you.