Customer Reviews

The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, & the Americans

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a brilliantly labyrinthine disquisition on the American Civil War. Royster's premise is the examination of the wars' scale of destruction, and the surprising extent of its violence, developed out of biographical sketches of Sherman and Jackson, who Royster believes best personify the Union and the Confederacy. Further, Royster sees the devastation of the Civil War as incipient in the antebellum period. The Destructive War is interpretive as well as critical, literary as well as historical, dealing as much with the idea of war as the facts themselves. Indeed, the author terms his work " a long essay."

Royster depicts the Civil War as-primarily-aggresive, anomalous, vicarious, and as the title suggests, destructive. The Confederacy sought aggressive war to achieve quick legitimacy, its viability depending on the ability not only to wage war, but also to take that war north of the Potomac, make the Yankees feel its effects, and thereby convince them that the costs of prolonged combat would be far too dear. Royster argues that the Union pursued aggresive war, ultimately, to bring progress to the South and demonstrate the superiority of free labor over slave labor, by razing the Confederacy to its foundations and then rebuilding it in the North's own image.

For Royster no one better epitomizes the Confederacy than Thomas Jonathon Jackson, better known by his sobriquet Stonewall, which Royster asserts, reflected a self-created persona. Jackson's Stonewall was an inelegant fusion of plodding resolve, frustrated (if not checked) ambition, and intense piety, smacking of both Calvinism and Arminianism, all funneled into a zealous devotion to duty. His untimely death at Chancellorsville gave birth to the Stonewall myth-patriotic Christian warrior-providing tantalizing 'what if' grist for the counterfactual mill of post hoc Confederate nation building. An advocate of "the tactical offensive in battle" Jackson is certain the Civil War will be "earnest,massed, and lethal."

The essence of the Union, according to Royster, can be found in William Tecumseh Sherman. Alarmed by Confederate strength and resolve, Sherman presciently observed that tactical defensive warfare would be woefully insufficient in what he believed would be a long and costly war. Egged on by newspapers ravenous for victory on the cheap, and deferring to troops already engaged in wanton mayhem, Sherman embraced, then embodied, that which he originally resisted: total war.

Royster includes subsidiary characterizations of the war as drastic, Republican, and vigorous. Drastic war knows no limits in the pursuit of emancipation and abolition. Republican war means "Emergency war powers" and "passionate nationalism" which will create "a new republic, purged of antebellum evils and backwardness." Vigorous war is possible because of the "widespread eagerness to be exonerated of the criminality attached to bloodshed." Auxiliary adjectives such as harsh, bitter, ineluctable and causeless are employed to complete the illustration. In the book's chapter on vicarious war the author asks, "How had the naive notions prevalent at the start given way so readily to killing on a scale supposedly unimaginable?" This single question is the essence of Royster's work.

Much of Civil War history is repetitive, concerned with retelling the same stories we like to hear. Charles Royster takes two familar figures--Stonewall Jackson and W. T. Sherman--and tells us things about our national character that we don't necessarily like to hear. This is a brilliant, award-winning account on how Americans embraced what Royster calls "destructive war," written by a historian with great literary sensibility. Royster demonstrates that the Civil War can still reveal new truths about ourselves

Royster's "The Destructive War" is one of the most important works of Civil War Scholarship in the 1990's. He blends a sweeping narrative with extensive analysis to explain the development of "total war" and its effects on Americans. What will really engage the reader is not so much Royster's examinations of General William Sherman's actions and those of his men, but rather the ideas of Stonewall Jackson and the calls for the destruction of Northern cities that they elicit from the Confederacy, a nation that was supposedly only wanted to fight a defensive war. While Royster's argument is not without some structural flaws, it makes some very interesting points about Confederate war aims and the willingness of populations and troops of both sides to destroy the cities of their former bretheren. I've read this book twice for graduate level classes and each time a lively discussion has been generated. An excellent book.

While focusing on the deeper causes of the civil war and their play-out on battlefields, Royster rips the lid off one of the most cherished American dogmas: the assumed sacrosanct value of the press. Royster's deep and thorough quotation from newspapers north and south, for decades preceding the war, lays bare a legacy of mutual hate encouraged by newspapers as they whipped their respective constituents up to a frenzy. The horror of "total war" and its major military proponents, in that context, is not only quite explicable but even ordinary -- even tame. The generals are, indeed, seen as essentially loyal ministers to a vast malaise primarily spiritual and psychic, which was hardly original to them, and which has been allowed to fester in this nation for a long time, and which to a degree poisoned populations both north and south before the war.

This is therefore one of the few major books on American history either to take up an original thesis, or to forward one so counter to accepted thinking. You can like it or dislike it, curse it or scream "ouch," but the evidence is there, meticulously laid out. The fact is, Royster throws great and uneasy light on our present culture wars which are also now several decades running -- and flamed in a quite similar manner.

In the meantime, Royster's descriptions of the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain and the burning of Columbia are matchless.

This book leaves all James McPhersons, all Ken Burnses, all Stephen Ambroses, and all similar gurus at the post -- mere babes. No, this is not to say he is some sort of Michael Moore hate America nut, either. He's more on the level of a Tacitus, frankly, or an Isaiah weeping at the gates. Read it and weep.

There are already plenty of reviews of Royster's book, but I'd like to note the first chapter (30 pages!) on the burning of Columbia, SC. The description of the event, the complexity of the causes and spread of the fire, provide an extensive and many-faceted explanation of both causes and blame, while leaving no doubt of its destructive result. Yankees can joke about Sherman being, "the father of Southern urban renewal", but in the case of Columbia, it's difficult to give him much of the credit or blame for the event.

History is written by men whose accounts reflect the times in which, and through which, they've lived. This is certainly true of Charles Royster's _The Destructive War..._, which is one of the most marvelous history books I (a Ph.D. in history) have ever read.

Royster is a veteran of Vietnam who became convinced of certain "truths" about America long ago. In this book, he subtly manipulates his evidence into consonance with his truths. Thus, e.g., when General Jackson suggests policies the Union armies (under Sherman and others) actually follow, this makes the C.S.A. morally equivalent to the U.S.A. Never mind that the reason Jackson's suggestions were never implemented is that his superiors in the Confederate government thought them morally repugnant; never mind that Lincoln actually revelled in similar suggestions' success. Does this "moral equivalency" theory remind you of anything more recent than 1865?

It is only after deep consideration that I've reached this caveat about this book. It is a literary gem on a par with the greatest histories. Whether you care about the "Civil War" or not (and I use the quotation marks because since the Confederates were not fighting for control of the U.S. Government, it was not really a civil war), this book repays a reading. Or two. Or three. It's marvelous.

I borrowed this book from my public library for my Kindle. I learned many things from the book about the Civil War and two of its generals which I will share below. If only Royster's compelling prose filled more of the books pages than the dry, academic and philosophically meandering that predominates. I will also air out my one other grievance before getting to the historical meat of this book. The editor should have asked Royster to avoid the overuse of the two words "repudiate" and "apotheosis" in the book. I forgot to search "repudiate" on the Kindle before I had to return the book, but it seemed like he used the word or it's cognates a hundred times. Of course he wrote this book over 18 years before Sarah Palin brought "refudiate" to our common lexicon, which makes its progenitor grate on my ears.

Confederate sympathizers like to trumpet the wickedness of Sherman's March to the Sea and the destructive swath he cut from Atlanta to Savannah. So if one chooses to forget the genocide on the Africans the Confederacy committed, then it does seem pretty bad, but before Sherman's march there was the raid on Chambersburg,

On the way out of town they set fire to the home of the county superintendent of public schools, telling his family that they did so because "he had taught negroes." Unlike Atlanta and Columbia, Chambersburg was neither a fortified, defended city nor the site of munitions plants and other military manufacturing. It was just a city the Confederates could reach. Its destruction, for which Early continued to claim credit long after the war, was an act of revenge preceded by an attempt at terror. In Richmond, General Josiah Gorgas noted: "The burning of Chambersburgh by Early gives intense satisfaction." p. 37

So it seems the Confederate army set a precedent, which they received back in spades from Sherman years later. I believe Royster was trying to develop this theme early on the book, showing the disposition of the Confederate army and Jackson, the devout Presbyterian, in particular. But this "godly" man seemed less merciful than the agnostic Sherman. "He would have preferred that Confederates take no prisoners but kill every Yankee soldier they could reach. In January 1861 he wrote that, if Virginia were invaded, its people should "defend it with a terrific resistance--even to taking no prisoners." p.38 Jackson seems awfully brutal, "He favorably endorsed John D. Imboden's proposal to form a regiment of rangers to fight a guerrilla war in western Virginia, where, Imboden said, "I shall expect to hunt Yankees as I would wild beasts."

I could go on, and I do at my blog, the Umblog, but this book at times seems like a celebration of Sherman even while acknowledging his many faults. There is much to learn from this book if one has the fortitude to endure the tedium.

The book The Destructive War by Charles Royster, examines the war policies and strategies of the Union and the Confederacy during the civil war. The book talks extensively about Confederate general Jackson and Union General Sherman.

At the beginning of the war the Union did not attack citizens or their property. The Union did not destroy any property of the citizens of the Confederacy because they anticipated winning the war. They realized that if they won the war it would be their responsibility to help the south rebuild. They also thought of the south and the people of the south as Americans despite labeling them traitors. But despite the reluctance on the part of Union Generals to damage citizen's property it eventually became policy. This change in policy came about because, "northern expressions of support for intensified war-making assumed that the Confederate army was an instrument of the Southern populace and that the populace was a legitimate object of attack," (Royster, 81). Women were also subject to attack. Union soldiers attacked women because "in the conventions of the time, women were supposed to use their power to ennoble and civilize-whereas, Southern women, it seemed, were serving what Elizabeth Cady Stanton called "mere pride of race and class." By promoting war against the union and by showing their hatred of Federal soldiers, they imitated Lady Macbeth and "unsexed themselves to prove their scorn of `the Yankees'." Thus they forfeited their exemption as ladies and noncombatants," (Royster, 87). Confederates did not share this policy. They always were proud that when Lee invaded Pennsylvania in 1863 that he gave an order that soldiers were not to damage citizen's property or plunder it.

The book also talks about General William Tecumseh Sherman. Sherman was a southerner who chose to stay in the Union. "He shared (southern) distaste for abolitionist and for Northern politicians who made hostility to slaveholders a political platform. Still, he told Louisianans that secession was treason and that he would not collaborate with it by remaining in the state," (Royster, 90). He hoped to stay out of the war but eventually he joined the Union army. He participated in the battle of Bull Run and blamed the "defeat on the inexperience and panic of the privates," (Royster, 92). He was the senior commander of central and western Kentucky in 1861, despite his desire not to be in charge. He was dismissed of command of the area and rumors spread that he was insane. He eventually led campaigns down the Mississippi River and captured Atlanta. He became famous for his destructive marches through the south.

General Thomas Jonathan Jackson or Stonewall Jackson was a very famous and effective Confederate General. Everyone even Northerners considered Jackson a "genuine general," (Royster, 42). Jackson on many occasions outmatched many Union Generals on the battlefield. He died on the battlefield on May 2, 1863 from friendly fire. Many Confederate Generals including Lee thought that if Jackson had not died that they would have won the war. After the war Jackson came to symbolize many things after the war. He epitomized the courageous and skilled Confederate soldier. He also represented a model "to all the men especially ambitious and aspiring youths, that the self-control and assiduous application he had become a self-made man," (Royster, 162).

The civil war was "an interior struggle in the (Confederacy and Union), an effort to make the newly forming conceptions of nationality inclusive lasting while they were still controversial and nebulous," (Royster, 145). Both sides believed that the best way to validate their idea of the nation is to destroy the other side's army. The Confederacy thought the best way to establish itself as an independent nation would be to deliver to the north a decisive defeat on their soil. General Stonewall Jackson gave the south many victories against the Union and came to be one of the most famous Generals in the war. The Union thought one of the best ways to bring the Confederacy to its knees would be to attack Confederate citizens. General Sherman was famous for his invasion into the south, wrecking havoc on the Confederate citizens.

I had to read this book for my Civil War class. I thought that the book was a valuable source of civil war information. However Royster repeated himself several times in the book. The book also jumped alot from subject to subject. The chapters did not flow into each other; they tended to skip from idea to idea. Despite this it was full of very detailed information.

If you've spent your life reading books by Professors of History, you'll probably appreciate Charles Royster's clear prose and heavy scholarship. If you're looking for a dramatic journalistic account that holds your interest you'll probably be disappointed.

This is historical consolidation more for academic specialists than the general public. The reader's thorough knowledge of the American Civil War is presumed in the casual dropping of names of historians, generals and battles--both famous & obscure--usually without introduction or context. By contrast the legend and death of Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson, and Gen. Sherman's sacking of Columbia, S.C. are covered so exhaustively, that if covered in similar detail, the whole war would require a thousand books.

The book is certainly very well written by academic standards, but the revolutionary perspective Professor Royster proclaims is an astonishing triumph of banal observation. It can be summarized as, "War Is Hell" (General Sherman's most famous quote, but hardly a new development in the history of war). At times the book feels like an excited slaughterhouse tour conducted by formerly naive vegetarian.

What separates it from journalism and shows its academic origin is the total dispersal of its narrative force into trivia. General Jackson's wounding and lingering death by friendly fire is interrupted so many times by later memoirs, transcripts, footnotes, newspaper editorials, historians' comments, and dry irrelevances that the reader suffers nearly as much as the general.

For me a good history book is hard to put down. This one required considerable determination to continue picking it up.

This book won the Bancroft Prize. I can see why. The prose is inspirational, every paragraph a little jewel. The book is absorbing. It was easy for me to get lost in the prose, too easy. But where was this book going, generally? How did the chapters tie together? How does the concept of the destructive war fit into the intellectual patterns of pre- and anti-bellum history? I can't answer these questions and I would hope that no one would ask me this last question on a Ph.D. prelim. I can draw only one conclusion: there was no connection. This was the first modern war in terms of its destructive power. One out of every five who participated, died on the field or, even more horribly, of his wounds, lilke Stone Wall Jackson. The intellectual origins of American politics became uprooted and found no voice in this war. The Jacksonian themes that built on that tradition were mangled by the war. All that was left was the vicarious war: people of all classes struggling to relate to the war in every day language in any way they could. And once the killing stopped and reconstruction began, the destructive war and the vicarious war ended. No one learned anything. Is that the main message of this book? I wish Royster had written it down in black and white.