I’m going to go out on what should be a well occupied limb ready to break under the weight and say that Donald Stoker’s The Grand Design: Strategy and the U.S. Civil War will win award(s) next year. Stoker’s book is not just keenly researched, but he handles the war policies and strategies of the North and South in a fairly unique way.

From the publisher:

In The Grand Design , Donald Stoker provides a comprehensive and often surprising account of strategy as it evolved between Fort Sumter and Appomattox. Reminding us that strategy is different from tactics (battlefield deployments) and operations (campaigns conducted in pursuit of a strategy), Stoker examines how Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis identified their political goals and worked with their generals to craft the military means to achieve them–or how they often failed to do so. Stoker shows that Davis, despite a West Point education and experience as Secretary of War, failed as a strategist by losing control of the political side of the war. His invasion of Kentucky was a turning point that shifted the loyalties and vast resources of the border states to the Union. Lincoln, in contrast, evolved a clear strategic vision, but he failed for years to make his generals implement it. At the level of generalship, Stoker notes that Robert E. Lee correctly determined the Union’s center of gravity, but proved mistaken in his assessment of how to destroy it. Stoker also presents evidence that the Union could have won the war in 1862, had it followed the grand plan of the much-derided general, George B. McClellan

Books have dealt with how and why the North won and the South lost, tactics, and strategy, but no other book I have read brings it all together within the political and strategic grand policies(or lack thereof) of each.

Stoker brings the startling yet obvious realization quickly to light when he points out that for a period of time when the war started Lincoln and the North had no real strategy. What was the North’s political objective? How and why does it change and how did this inform military strategy, operations, and tactics? If the North could have developed a grand strategy quickly and placed the proper instruments of war into place they could have won sooner. The South on the other hand had a clear grand strategy, and if I read Stoker correctly, but they were uneven in employing it. What is also clear, though not original in this work, is the failure of Davis and the evolution and success of Lincoln as a “grand strategist.”

I could go on and on about this truly unique and excellent work. I highly recommend it. Bravo Mr. Stoker.

Mr. Davis attempted to cover the first 50 years of the 19th century by following the narratives of 6 events: Burr’s trial, Weatherford’s War, the Madison Mutiny, Dade’s promise, Morse’s code and Jesse’s journey. Mr. Davis sought to provide “a portal into the times” in which each event unfolded. These are what he calls “overlooked.”

Mr. Davis has not written a history book in as much as he has a political op-ed piece. Davis starts off with President Obama’s election and throughout the book brings up politics of today and compares it with the past; and he takes events from the past and compares them with today. For example, Davis compared several events from American history with the terrorists attacks of 9/11. Here are those examples: William Weatherford’s “massacre” (Mr. Davis wording) at Fort Mims when Creek Indians stormed the fort and killed over 500 (265 armed militia) but spared the blacks so they could enslave them. Mr. Davis also compares a Seminole Indian attack in Florida against American soldiers as another 9/11 like event. I’m sorry, but how attacks by soldiers (warriors) against soldiers (and yes some settlers who understood the danger) is comparable to a radical Islamic terrorist attack against unarmed civilians whose only crime was going to work compares is beyond me!?

In his “Introduction,” Mr. Davis correctly points out that back in 1776 there were “many founders” who would have “been perfectly at home owning Barack Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two little girls and perhaps selling all or some…” Historically inaccurate? No, the straw man here is easily disposed. Well done Mr. Davis! Of course, Davis fails to point out that some founders did not own slaves: John Adams, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Paine. But the point here is Davis’s agenda, it’s “gotcha” history with his own political twist. As if the man is telling us anything new.

Now he does actually get into some interesting stuff with his 6 narratives only his constant injection of politics into his narrative ruined it; at least for me.

Davis then reveals the shocker that Washington (who freed his slaves upon his death) and Jefferson (who could not as he technically no longer owned them upon his death due to massive debts) would surely have been two of those who would have had no problem with the above scenario and would have even taken part. I don’t know how often Washington sold his slaves or if he ever broke up families (and the same goes for Jefferson), but Mr. Davis better know. Does Mr. Davis know that by the time the Revolution and Constitutional Convention are completed and the nation holds its first elections, the fact that anyone was voting on such a massive scale was unprecedented in world history. Remember, most of the world was “ruled” or lived in anarchy.

Mr. Davis then wraps it up by pointing out the hypocrisy of the founding when Obama himself, had he lived back in the day, would have only been “three-fifths of a man” when the counting of population took place for representation in Congress. Never mind that all the racists Southerners wanted all blacks to be counted as an entire human being as it would have benefited them.

Another and final example I will provide, every time (maybe I missed one or two when he didn’t) when Davis compares an event that was bad within something from modern history he does so with only Republicans. In his discussion on “presidential vendettas” he brings up Nixon and Bush, never mind FDR who had political opponents jailed.

The book is nothing more than a political expression of Mr. Davis and a good example of “presentisim” and activism that has no place in historical scholarship.

If you want a good book on this time period, take a look at David Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848.

From the News-wire:

Newswise — Daniel E. Sutherland, professor of history at the University of Arkansas, has been awarded the Distinguished Book Prize by the Society of Military Historians for his work A Savage Conflict: The Decisive Role of Guerrillas in the American Civil War.

Sutherland’s A Savage Conflict is the first book to treat guerrilla warfare as critical to understanding the course and outcome of the Civil War. In what has been called “a meticulously researched account,” Sutherland argues that irregular warfare took a large toll on the Confederate war effort by weakening support for state and national governments and diminishing the trust citizens had in their officials to protect them.

Sutherland is the author or editor of 13 books, and five of his books have been selected by the History Book Club. His next book, Civil War Guerrillas, will appear in 2012.

Awarded since 1987, the Distinguished Book Prize recognizes the best book-length publications in English on military history, whether monograph, bibliography, guide or other project.

Let me be clear, Daniel E. Sutherland’s book A Savage Conflict is incredibly researched, informative, and well written. It deserves praise. However, the title also includes the wordage: “The Decisive Role of Guerrillas in the American Civil War.” And when I read the book there was not nearly enough within it to support any claim of “decisive” role played by irregular warfare during the Civil War. I would instead point the reader to Robert R. Mackey’s book The Uncivil War: Irregular Warfare in the Upper South, 1861-1865 that is far more convincing and contains a far better argument establishing that irregular warfare did not play a decisive role and in fact guerrilla warfare was an utter failure for the South.

For example, Sutherland ends the book stating that “guerrilla conflict… made the war a far bloodier affair than the armies alone could have done. They prolonged the war by months at least…” (p. 277).

Hardly a claim for “decisive” and symptomatic of the entire book. Seems like a flaw that was worth considering before winning awards.

From the press release:

Dr. Betty Boyd Caroli, historian and biographer of first ladies in the United States, will speak at Manhattan College on Saturday, March 28 at 1:00 p.m. in the Capalbo Room of De La Salle Hall. The event, part of Manhattan’s celebration of Women’s History Month, is free and open to the public.

Caroli is the author of numerous books, including First Ladies: From Martha Washington to Laura Bush, The Roosevelt Women and Inside the White House: America’s Most Famous Home. She was among a select group of historians invited to meet with former first lady Laura Bush in 2008, and frequently appears on national television and the BBC to discuss the role of presidents’ wives in American politics. Caroli has been a guest on the Today Show, The O’Reilly Factor, PBS’s NewsHour and C-SPAN’s Booknotes.

I thumbed through it and will hopefully provide an in-depth review later. Lots of candidates for the most important First Ladies (not a part of the Author’s objective as far as I could tell), but for my money it would be Abigail Adams. When I show a few of the episodes of the John Adams mini-series my students are stunned at her importance and influence on Adams. I have read their letters (John and Abigail) and she was indeed his equal intellectually. She was the first influential First Lady in terms of her influence on the President.

Caroli has written numerous times about First Ladies and another book I have read and highly recommend:

Malcolm Potts explores the questions concerning the biological connections of actions such as war and sex. Potts has a broad background in working with various organizations world wide including war-torn and Third world countries. As a scientist and obstetrician, Potts has worked with governments and aid organizations globally, and in the trenches with women who have been raped and brutalized in the course of war. Combining their own experience with scientific findings in primatology, genetics and anthropology, Potts and Hayden explain war’s pivotal position in the human experience and how men in particular evolved under conditions that favored gang behavior, rape and organized aggression. Drawing on these new insights, they propose a rational plan for making warfare less frequent and less brutal in the future.[Quoted freely from the publisher's website.]

Potts believes t hat warlike behavior (warfare and terrorism) requires a “special sort of violence in men” and he calls it “team aggression.” When one shifts through some of the constant political rhetoric, there is an interesting analysis of the biological nature of aggression. Women, for the most part, do not fall into the definition of team aggression and have often, according to the authors, been the target of sexual and physical aggression by men. We fight over limited resources such as oil. We need to reduce the need for conflict by reducing the need for such limited resources.

However, the book is significantly flawed in my opinion. For example, in the final chapter the authors attempt to produce a scenario where we can overcome our predisposition for group aggression (reminds me of the Group Think mentality I use when discussing the horrors of Nazi death camps.) The authors suggestion for “containing” war and terrorism is simplified to a bullet list of actions:

• Empower women with education and opportunities.
• Increase the number of women in parliaments and legislatures.
• Enable women to have the means to manage whether and when to have a child.
• Help people prevent unintended pregnancies.
• Ensure Universal secular, scientific education.
• Encourage knowledge of history and an understanding of our evolution from other animals.
• Develop and maintain a free media.
• Avoid supplying weapons to potential enemies.

An interesting list. Where to begin. The author’s vast experiences abroad (he worked with rape victims in war torn countries) has clearly impacted his objectivity, and who can blame him. However, the first bullet point applies to only those third world and war torn countries, as do most of these points. Where in the United States are women not empowered to educate themselves, manage their child production, ect. Also, the complete absence of Christianity and religion, instead we are encouraged to teach an “understanding of our evolution from other animals…” Now how does this help us? How do I as a teacher make this work? I have no clue! I know, they have data, research, ect.

The authors do clearly acknowledge that soldiers and warriors are also made by their environment. I also agree with knowing our history, so long as it is not presented within the framework of Progressivism or Social Justice. The Press is also key, it was meant to be an entity that help the government accountable, and clearly today that is questionable. Finally, avoid sending weapons to our potential enemies, now that is one that makes complete sense.

All and all I am dumbfounded they sent me this book. I didn’t care for the consistent political punditry and the book comes off as theoretical fantasy that will never be and could never be! The authors utterly fail to prove to this reviewer that they have offered any kind of path to a “safer world”!

Editorial Review - Library Journal vol. 132

In a crowded field of books on the Civil War era, Nelson (Steel Drivin’ Man ) and Sheriff (The Artificial River: The Erie Canal and the Paradox of Progress, 1817–1862 ), historians at the College of William and Mary, give us something new—an engaging, informed portrait of two peoples at war, with an emphasis on how common soldiers and noncombatants adjusted to and were changed by the war. The authors spend more time in recruiting halls, military camps, hospitals, and prisons than in battle to observe what moved men to war and some to flee it, as well as how the physical and emotional demands of living away from home affected their sense of self and their national identity. At the same time, they discuss how the war came home to civilians, with the raids of armies and partisans, the demands of mobilization, the death and dismemberment of soldiers, the erosion of slavery, and the promise of freedom. They are especially good at linking the experience of, and expectations about, the war with Americans’ ambitions and interests in the West. Their vivid descriptions of disease and destruction will remind readers that war was hell even as it was also an instrument of social change. The new social historians’ interest in “the people” gets its full due in this readable, reliable, and remarkably relevant book. Highly recommended for university and large public libraries.—Randall M. Miller, Saint Joseph’s Univ., Philadelphia

When the Missouri Compromise was signed in 1820, the distance of railroads in the United States did not even equal a mile.[p.31] A telling piece of data that jumped out at me while reading Scott Reynolds Nelson and Carol Sheriff’s A People at War: Civilians and Soldiers in America’s Civil War, 1854-1877, and more specifically their chapter “The Road to Bleeding Kansas.” [A chapter I plan on handing out to my AP Students as a supplemental reading.]

The western expansion of the United States is something that has to be presented in detail as a causation (one of several) of the Civil War. The railroad explosion after 1820, though mainly impacting the North, opened up Western United States and caused the expansion of not just the population and economy but of the legal organization of the new territories into states. These new states placed pressure on a growing desire by some in the North to limit slavery’s expansion and some in the South to expand. As the country expanded, so too did the differences between too societies and their view of slavery as an institution of labor.

When looking at the factors that led to the outbreak of war, the caricature of a “Industrial North” and a “Slave South” as a main cause of the war, does “not hold up” as the authors note. [p.11] And I do agree that it is too simplistic to simply say that “slavery” caused the Civil War. Of course, as a general and significant cause, it was indeed the driving force. No slavery, no internal conflict over expansion, tariffs, ect. No threats and eventual declarations of secession. But that declaration does not help us understand the Civil War and the series of events that led up to that main event.

Nelson and Sheriff present what really feels like as a series of essays dealing with various aspects of the Civil War but all related to the theme of “a people at war.” The book goes to ground level and presents views from such aspects of the “people” including blacks and women. Social history is nothing new, and as the authors recognized, the publishing of American Civil War books has led to the extinction of many trees. So, to answer the authors in their Introduction, I would say their book is a nice addition to scholarship, though in the end it didn’t feel like anything special.

Nonetheless, the book is broken up nicely into both chronological and thematic aspects taking the narrative from the causes of war to Reconstruction, and I find it very useful as a teacher.

-Chris

This is a book assigned to me in my graduate class and I am compelled to discuss it. Think of the time period, post Reconstruction, Gilded Age, Progressivism, Industrialization, population drift, New Immigrants, and Imperialism. America was changing and began to find itself, you could say. New problems to be dealt with as urbanization and industrialization caused a shock wave of response to social issues such as child labor and worker safety. Muckrakers would also expose “How the other Half Lives” and the “Progress and Poverty” of their time. The transforming of America was seen in science and technology, the Bessemer process initiated what the perfection of Iron and evolution of steel that allowed Andrew Carnegie to create cheaper steel and start a revolution in industry: Skyscrapers and railroads. Cities grew and in all directions. Though, as was usually the case, not an American invention, but something that an American with vision and who was willing to take a gamble, would perfect and profit from.

Carnegie wrote “The Gospel of Wealth” and articulated his view that the rich are merely “trustees” of their wealth and should give back to society. His famous quote said it all: “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.” He literally died broke when you compare the wealth he had from start to finish. Robber Baron or Captain of Industry whose success helped the masses far more than it hurt them? You decide.

Weibe begins his narrative in 1877 when we find America caught up in a great depression and the national strike in 1877. By the 1880s the Gilded Age is here with its progress and wealth as farms, banks, businesses and railroads expanded and most prospered. This leads to his thesis that all this change cased a drastic shift as the small autonomic communities in transition struggled with a so-called “search for order.” This was a transition between the Old world and the New. Weibe argues that those small “island communities” were essentially left behind.

Weibe’s book is a good read and a very useful resource that I highly recommend even though I don’t agree with everything and feel he lauds to a degree the disappearance of the “island communities,” where I on the other hand do not. The struggle for order was still localized on a small community level and on a bigger urban level as well What evolved was a divide between them in some respects. Anyway, a good read and worth the time and effort.

As historian Ira Stoll notes, “History has not been kind to Samuel Adams,” and indeed one might ask why?

As an APUS History teacher I have to admit that I don’t do a lot on Samuel Adams. His name appears in and out of a narrative of pre-Revolutionary America and mainly with regard to the Sons of Liberty.

I am very late to the party here and after reading Ira Stoll’s Samuel Adams: A Life realize, rather embarrassed, how I have missed the boat with regards to the “most famous” Adams as the French saw it. I am happy to announce that I will be addressing this Mr. Adam with more respect and may even dedicate an entire lecture to him when I otherwise would have never considered such a thing. Mr. Stoll’s book was published by Simon & Schuster in 2008 and I didn’t even notice. Shame on me.

With the recommendation of a friend I purchased the book two weeks ago and just read it. I have read no other biographies of Mr. Adams, but nonetheless, cannot image a better one! Samuel Adams was more than a radical revolutionary as some biographers and historians have referred to him. I can even vaguely remember a college professor indicated that Samuel Adams was crazy. It’s interesting how Adams is/was in some regards referred to in much the same way as John Brown, and maybe in some ways the two are similar! Both served as the spark for a devastating fire. They were easy targets.

Samuel Adams was revered by the likes of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as the spearhead of Revolution as the Founding Father. Too bad many of us contemporaries have neglected him… at least for the time being as I plan to rectify that.

Anyway, this led me to a book I received recently The Long Shadow of the Civil War Southern Dissent and Its Legacies, By Victoria E. Bynum.

In the Introduction of the book Bynum quickly points out the focus of her book and the “three central questions” that are addressed:

1) How prevalent was support for the Union among ordinary Southerners, and how was it expressed?
2) How did Southern Unionists and freedpeople experience the Union’s victory and the emancipation of the slaves during the era of Reconstruction and beyond?
3) What were the legacies of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the South’s White Supremacists counterrevolution in regard to race, class, and gender relations and New South politics?

Which are very important questions and still very relevant. The shock waves of the Civil War are still felt today. The economic and social conditions of Black Americans was impacted by the failure of Reconstruction, the legacy of Jim Crow, and the dependency created by the White guilt welfare state of the Johnson Administration’s “Great Society” (and beyond) a tragedy that increased the number of single mother households that devastated blacks for generations and sentenced so many single mother black families to poverty.

Anyway, a great read and a solid study, and more importantly a timely one that relates to the continued reflection on the meaning of the American Civil War.