Customer Reviews

A People at War: Civilians and Soldiers in America's Civil War

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

 

 

This is a richly-detailed, well-crafted history of the Civil War that places the lives of ordinary soldiers and civilians front and center, to great effect. It combines thoughtful analysis with wonderfully evocative descriptions, and truly brings the era to life. The war's many-layered influences on common lives are examined in uncommon depth and with a generous dose of insight and compassion by the authors. The result is not only a great read, but an excellent contribution to our understanding of this complicated period of American history.

For too many years, authors on the Civil War took "war" too narrowly, focusing almost exclusively on campaigns and battles. But within the last couple of decades, Civil War historians have started to appreciate the fact that "war" is a social phenomenon and ultimately can be understand only in a social, economic, religious, and geographical context that goes beyond the exclusively military one. This has encouraged a refreshing and illuminating move away from an emphasis on military commanders toward explorations of the lives of ordinary civilians and soldiers during the war years.

Nelson and Sheriff's A People at War is a very readable and informative exercise in this wider analysis of the Civil War. The authors look at the political and economic tensions in the decade leading up to the war, explore the evolution of the conflict into a hard war which eroded moral distinctions between combatants and noncombatants, examine the effects of combat on soldiers and civilians, outline the roles of liberated "contraband" in the outcome of the war (one of their more interesting claims in this regard is that McClellan self-handicapped by refusing to use blacks as spies or laborers), and briefly discuss the social effects of Reconstruction. The book's readability and scope make it an excellent introduction to the Civil War. It has a decent "Suggestions for Further Reading" section, and two appendices, a "Political Chronology" and a "Military Chronology" are useful resources even for readers who are already comfortable swimming in Civil War waters.

one final word. An earlier reviewer of Nelson & Sheriff's A People at War criticizes it for relying heavily on secondary rather than primary texts. But this seems to me to miss the mark. Some history books make contributions by unveiling new sources and freshly discovered texts. Others make equally valuable contributions by taking fresh looks at material already mined, discerning patterns in it that have hitherto gone unnoticed, and then offering interpretations which provide new insights. Still others contribute by synthesizing a wealth of scattered information into a comprehensive picture. If I read A People at War correctly, it falls somewhere within the second and third categories. And it does an admirable job.

The previous review should be taken with a grain of salt as the writer clearly prefers military history books pertaining to the Civil War and this book focuses on anything but the battlefield. His criticism that no older works or original documents are cited is just incorrect; astute readers will realize that many of the books the authors cite were greatly informed by those earlier works and their themes addressed where appropriate. The problem is that the social history of the Civil War is something that wasn't directly addressed until just a few decades ago. What the authors have produced is a stimulating synthesis of a great body of material and a fine narrative. It is in some ways similar to what Ken Burns has attempted in his latest documentary, "The War," explaining the human toll of war beyond the lines of battle.

Is political commentary history? Many Civil War books will answer this question with a resounding "YES". They will correctly point out that the American Civil War has an abundance of military histories but few social oriented histories. Events as complex as civil war contains a number of stories and views that compete for attention. Some of these are vital to understanding the event, while some have languished for good reasons.

The dust jacket has an impressive group that has "advance praise" for the book. James M. McPherson, author of Battle Cry of Freedom leads the list. Walter Johnson of Harvard's history department has written a number of books on slavery. Maris Vinovskis, a professor in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy and a research scientist at the Institute for Social Research Center for Political Studies. University of North Carolina's William Barney, who focuses on the 19th-century U.S., especially the antebellum South and Michael Mason from Brigham Young University that seems to have no history background. I have spent so much time on this because the book leans heavily on current authors. This dependence extends to endnotes referencing not the letter but a current book that uses the letter. The majority of the endnotes will reference not an original document but a book published in since 2000. In place of a bibliography, we have "Suggestions for Further Reading". In three chapters worth of suggestions of 26 listed books, the oldest was published in 1940 and reprinted in 1965, seven were published prior to 1990 with the majority being published in the last seven years. It has been said that this is necessary because this field is new and research is lacking. However, if you are not doing original research are you contributing anything to our knowledge?

This is well written and very readable most of the information exists elsewhere. Some of the information is questionable. On page 111, the author's tell us Halleck recalled the Army of the Potomac to Washington in 1862 "in large part" to disease. The Army of Northern Virginia being north of the Rappahannock River on the way to Maryland must have been a small part of that decision.