Customer Reviews

Mr. Lincoln Goes to War

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Marvel, as always, gives a fresh, objective look at the history of the Civil War. For those who have read his biography of Burnside and his great book on Lee's Retreat from Petersburg, you know that his research is well done lending a base to fascinating revelations contributing to his opinions of cause and effects. In Lincoln's case, Marvel presents that Lincoln's heavy handedness in Maryland, particularly the suspension of habeas corpus and the blatantly illegal arrest of politicians, was far more abusive then necessary, He argues further than Lincoln's aggressive reinforcement of Ft. Sumter contributed to armed resistance and solidifying the states that became the Confederacy. And further, Marvel argues that Lincoln's call for men from all states to put down the rebellion was reckless, drawing many of the Border States over to the confederacy. Controversial to some degree but the actions did occur and the results were the same as Marvel noted. But that's what makes the book fascinating, Marvel presents well documented facts and you may disagree with his point of view but the evidence is solid and the reader can interpret the outcome as he wishes. Further points of view, that many soldiers, particularly in the union, were suffering economic hardship that helped recruitment significantly and there is well presented evidence of that. Fascinating detail is on Lincoln's arrival in Washington through a potentially revolting Maryland requiring him to secretly board another train, the weakness of the capitol security bolstered by fragile forces, the self appointed General Lyon's rash actions that created southern resistance in Missouri, the clash at Bull Run and great detail about the union fiasco at Ball's Bluff that killed Lincoln's close friend Senator Baker resulting in the ridiculous and politically motivated arrest and incarceration of General Stone. Ball's Bluff lead to the abolitionist led committee on the conduct of the war, which was a very successful but brutal breaking of Union generals with democratic principals. Thus, the history is excellent, the opinions, particularly in the epilogue, are controversial and I do not agree with many of them such as a war being avoided as I think it was inevitable. I also think that the paranoia in Washington, not knowing who was friend or foe, contributed to the temporary crushing of the Constitution; however illegal it was during a national emergency. However, the facts and presentation is well done and there is nothing wrong with a good argument. In addition, Marvel captures his subjects quite well and the description of innocent General Stone's plight is quite sad, while the description of the audacious and irresponsible General Lyon, who Marvel describes as an "insubordinate, self righteous psychopath", seems to fit the man. Read the book and enjoy an intellectual challenge, a good debate gives a healthy outlook and has the potential to break the traditional view.

Mr. Marvel, the author of over a dozen previous books on much narrower slices of the Civil War, now launches the first of a multi-part series taking a completely fresh look based on primary sources and--most importantly--an ability to think, judge, and raise reasonable questions. Was the war and all its devastation inevitable? Marvel doesn't hold to the historical inevitability school that seems to maintain an iron grip on the minds of so many historians of the great wars. Did Lincoln have options in what became the opening months of sparring? Many historians shudder at the mere raising of such questions, but without understanding options it is difficult to judge decisions. The book helps us make sense of the events which did take place by looking at decisions made on both sides of the emerging conflict as actual decisions based on partial and often very mistaken information. Marvel's use of primary data to raise questions about the degree to which the Union relied on economic incentives is also fascinating in giving us a more realistic view of what drove men to volunteer when they did. It's not clear, however, that we have any good standard against which to judge the economic incentive aspect, and one ought not to assume a kind of economic reductionism here, but the question is a fair one and the examples Marvel uses add color and comprehension. Most importantly, Marvel is a bold, colorful writer and the book sparkles with nuggets and surprises. An intelligently provocative read.

If you want to read one book about the beginnings of the Civil War, read this one. It takes the reader back to events as revealed by original documents from the time of the war, rather than viewing the war through the lenses of later historians. While William Marvel is sympathetic to Lincoln, he is not blinded by retrospective worship of the great emancipator. By analyzing what Lincoln was doing at the time he was doing it, rather than looking at his actions in light of later events, he brings into focus his failings, as well as his accomplishments. Lincoln may have been our greatest president -- Marvel doesn't dispute this -- but he made mistakes, often serious ones, and part of his greatness is that he was able to learn from them and overcome many of them -- "extracting ultimate good from the devastating cataclysm that he had played so significant a part in bringing upon his country."

But the book is only partly about Lincoln. Perhaps even more interesting are Marvel's discoveries about the motivations and morale of the soldiers, particularly Union soldiers. Although in later reminiscences they often spoke loudly and proudly of patriotism, in letters and other documents written during the war many, perhaps most, of them revealed that their primary motives were economic. Statistics bear that out. In state after state "volunteers" came largely from the ranks of the unemployed in depressed industies. Then as now, the cost of war falls heaviest on those who can least afford it.

Marvel also recreates the battles and troop movements as they occurred at the time, from the viewpoints of individual soldiers as well as generals and politicians. The book is detailed but beautifually written and a pleasure to read.

Given the number of books Mr. Marvel has written about the Civil War, and given that he is here embarking on a multi-volume history of the war, it's amazing that anyone could think (as one previous reviewer alleges) that this book is a thinly veiled attack on Bush's war in Iraq. In truth, this is a fresh perspective on the beginning of the war evidencing much original research. You may not agree with everything here, but this book may make you reconsider long-held assumptions. My only criticism is that the excellent treatment of the battle at Balls Bluff is somewhat more extensive than the engagement merits in the overall context of the book.

This is a very good book. Taken from a bit of a different perspective then most Civil War books. A very, but no too detailed book to keep it from being a page turner. As in every aspect of history there are always more then on way of looking at things. While a lot of Civil War books are simply rehashes of their brothers then one just has that little difference to make it more interesting. Kept my attention and did not bog me down with a telephone book's worth of names to confuse me.

In 1988 a soft spoken creative director named Joel Machak wrote the famous line: "This is not your father's Oldsmobile" which has since become famous and is often borrowed for other subjects. Allow me to borrow it again: "This is not your father's Lincoln-Civil War history." One reviewer referred to Mr. Marvel as a leading "contrarian historian". Another spoke of him as a "revisionist". Either way, as I read the preface, I will admit, the hair on the back of my neck stood up and I briefly thought of casting the book in the garbage, unread. However, a true education begins with listening to differing opinions and theories, even when they may offend or annoy you. I will admit that I am a Southerner (a native Texan, son of a Texas farmer/rancher), a Unionist, a Vietnam veteran, a political "hawk", a Republican and a retired Southern Baptist pastor. That technically should put my feet firmly on both sides of the fence. I consider myself a man of peace, and would much rather walk away from a fight if I can, but back me in a corner or attack my family, my friends, or my country and I will stand with Abraham Lincoln, George W. Bush, and Generals George S. Patton and Douglas MacArthur all day long. It was hard for me to tell if William Marvel was relating history or engaging in modern political rhetoric. His anti-Lincoln tone is so inflamed I wondered if he had been taken over by the ghost of Stephen A. Douglas, except for the fact that even Marvel admits (page 27) that on the evening that Fort Sumter surrendered, even Douglas stopped by to tell the new president that although he resisted the president's overall political agenda, he was solidly with him in the matter of maintaining the Union.

However critical Marvel is of Lincoln, there is much to learn by listening to what he has to say. Lincoln was human; he did make mistakes, and he was indeed a novice. In fact, one reviewer pointed out that every president is a novice when he first takes office. He had to learn on the job. But, learn he did, and I am grateful for his courage and leadership. Also, the situation in which Lincoln found himself politically, the fear and panic among the population on both sides of the secession issue, and the fact that they did not have the more than 150 years of intervening time that we have had since then to make a decision, this reader feels the president did a very good job. After all, he succeeded in saving the Union. We did not divide into two nations. Nor did we disintegrate into three or four smaller third-world nations. We are a strong and powerful nation able to protect our borders and help defend freedom around the world when another nation needs help. I, for one, am proud of what we have become. We are, at this writing, 235 years old as a free nation. Even if Mr. Lincoln took extreme measures to save this experiment in freedom, I am still willing to give him some belated kudos for success and more than a little "slack" in doing what he felt it took to do the job. Mr Marvel, however, never seems to have considered that peace at any price is far too expensive.

John Stuart Mill wrote: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." In a sense, both the Union and the Confederacy had to fight: the North for preservation of the Union, and the South for the right to secede. The result was that the question of secession and slavery was settled for most Americans.

What Marvel has taught me starts with the fact that most modern historians gloss over the great initial public opposition to the use of force. The impression is thus given by most historians that the North was overwhelmingly pro-force. However, instead of concluding that Lincoln arrogantly ignored public opinion as well as that of most of his cabinet and other political leaders as Marvel does, I think the weight is in favor of concluding that Lincoln weighed the opposition and the situation and then courageously did what he knew was necessary to preserve the Union which was what he swore to do in his oath of office. What one does to "defend the constitution of the United States" may be a matter of interpretation, but it is certainly reasonable to believe that preserving the Union as it is handed to you is part of that constitutional preservation. It is all in how the one telling the story chooses to characterize the events. Evidence of Marvel's prejudice against Lincoln can be seen in the fact that he even criticizes Lincoln's mis-spelling of Fort Sumter (page 26) in a day when standardized spelling was in its infancy in America. (I even try to put a `p' in Sumter occasionally.) Thus, there is no doubt that the author is "contrarian", "revisionist" and prejudiced in his evaluation of the 16th president's actions. Yet there is great value in debate and I, for one, am glad I read this fascinating work. I am no closer to agreeing with his premise than when I started, but I am much more familiar with the issues and the 1860-61 debate on whether to allow a peaceful separation or "go to war" to preserve the union. Thank you, Mr. Lincoln for your important, timely and courageous decision in going against the crowd and providing genuine leadership to America in her time of trial. And, thank you, Mr. Marvel for having the courage to go against the crowd and speak out a word of challenge to the status quo. Maybe someday, we will truly know where the right stance is. Until then, I will continue to wish that I could step into an alternate time line and see what really would have happened and what America would be like if...

Meanwhile, if you like to have your mind and opinions challenged and want to learn and explore new ground, I highly recommend you read "Mr. Lincoln Goes To War." If you want to just read more of the same thing you have read other places or have your present opinions confirmed, save yourself some time and aggravation and just walk away from this one.

Five stars for originality and scholarship (zero stars for his opinion)

This author's works on Appomattox and the Andersonville prison are some of my favorite and most recommended books, but this work falls short of those efforts. Knowing Marvel to bring fresh insights to his subjects I was anxious to read this book. I wanted to know "Could the Civil War have been avoided by President Lincoln?" The author says yes, but not in a very convincing manner. The early chapters are interesting, but when the focus of the book becomes the battles of First Manassas, Wilson's Creek, and Ball's Bluff it strays away from the subject. Apparently there just wasn't enough information to support a book length work. This work should have been written as an article in a periodical. A disappointment particularly to one familiar with this author's previous outstanding works. I did find the story of the Union's efforts to protect a largely undefended Washington, D.C. to be good. Read Marvel's other works and you will be rewarded, but pass on Mr. Lincoln.

I want to say that this book should only be read from the library, as it is a waste of additional money to purchase the book. The first complaint I have on the book is the title. I believe the author wanted to capitalize on the growing amount of books being published around the bicentinal of Lincon's birth. The book talks very little about Lincoln himself and when it does, it mispresents facts and also shows a modern twist to the arguemnts the author tries, but tries very poorly to make. Today we are used to politicians making a statement or taking a stand and not following through. This was not Lincoln as he took his stand kept to it. The author talks about the compromise proposed by John J Crittenden. Lincoln as a Republican running stated his views on slavery and was going to stick to them and not compromise. A lesson for future leaders could be learned here.

The author has a typical southern bias in stating the south had the right to secede. They in fact did not. The Constitution clearly states a confederation could not be made by states nor could individual states sign or make treaties with other countries. This is a very important point since the author would like to have it both ways with how Lincoln fought the war. It was said that Lincoln violated the Constitution in his prosecution of the war. The author then states that the south was its own country. The Constitution of the United States is for the states and its people within the United States. The author has not made a consistent arguement when he wants the Constitution protections for the south but states they are their own country, who in fact drew up their own "constitution."

The book falls very short of being considered a good book about Lincoln in anway shape or form. The title itself is the biggest draw back. If the author had a different title and actually made clear and concise good arguments, it might have been a better book. Again, this is not a book I would spend additional money on, as the library has already spent my tax dollars to have the books in its catalogs.

I only rated this book a one because the military accounts are commendable.

Mr. Marvels work is steeped with anti-war politics and pacifist ideology. He conveniently fails to point out that the Constitution does not allow for states to form a confederation or the constitutional and political backdrop to President Lincoln's decision making. Throughout this work I find myself thinking that the author like many other cowards and morally bankrupt citizens in our society would have been perfectly happy maintaining the aristocratic southern sentiments, and slavery... so long as their skin wasn't black.

There are numerous great works on President Lincoln, the Civil War and the Constitution... this book is sad convoluted diatribe filled with prejudice and ignorance.

Mr. Lincoln goes to War is a rambling, incoherent book. Its parts--three of them--are so badly interwoven that they suggest an author and publisher too eager to get to press.

One part is a completely unconvincing effort to show that Lincoln forced the war on the nation. Another is an argument that all, most, or many (take your choice) northern soldiers volunteered for economic, rather than patriotic or political, reasons: they were poor. The third part is a competent, if uninspired, chronicle of the major military actions of the war's first year.

The third part is the least objectionable and controversial of the three, leading me to think the first two were added to spice up sales. However sincere the author may be in thinking the war may have been avoidable, he does little to show how. And in dumping all the blame on Lincoln (a "novice" president--jeez I thought we had a novice president every four to eight years.) It takes two to tango, and an evenhanded approach would take a look at Richmond and the Southern "statesmen" who failed their test of political imagination too.

There seems to be a pro-South bias running here. Of course the South had a right to secede and all the pejorative adjectives pile up on the northern side. I wonder if the author is not projecting back to the 1860s some of his feeling, possibly libertarian, about contemporary Washington and the Federal government. His treatment of Lincoln suggests that he's thinking it was another case of big bad DC shoving another abridgment of personal liberty down the throats of the little good guys out in the boonies.