Slogging through to prove a point?

America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation by David R. Goldfield


I shouldn't make too much a big deal out of this, but I can't help myself. For all that the book is and isn't, it is not a demonstration of "How the Civil War created a Nation."  Maybe it should have been subtitled, "How the Civil War almost prevented America from becoming a nation."  Occasionally--very occasionally--the title was illustrated in the text--but not enough to justify the subtitle.

The nation-building that occurred during the period was only incidentally a consequence of the war.  When the southern states succeeded, the departure of their Democratic Party forces from congress left a republican majority.  That, plus a strong president, allowed our government to get things done in a hurry--the  Homestead Act passed, granting 160 acres of public land to farmers; a Department of Agriculture was established; land grants were made to finance the transcontinental railroad; government bonds were issued to pay for the war.  The National Bank Act of 1863 established a national currency.  The North was becoming a nation--the South didn't rejoin until long after the war and reconstruction were over.

The book was full of fascinating facts about a fascinating time in history.  For example:

- Jeff Davis' inaugural address described the constitutional basis for succession and how it "preserved the founding principles of the American nation." It was an admirable speech; convincing even to modern sensibilities. A month later, his vice president Stephens made a speech that declared, "Our new government is founded on [...] the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery; subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."

- The actual percentage of successionists in the south was nowhere near a majority.  Only in Texas was the ordinance of succession submitted to popular vote--the other states were afraid it wouldn't pass.

- The northerners' desire to prohibit slavery in the territories was not based on moral abhorrence but rather on fear of competition for jobs.  They were, on average, just as prejudiced against the negro as southerners.  "We did not enlist to fight for the negro and I can tell you that we neer shall..."

- I never realized how much Walt Whitman, in his poetry, captured the events and sentiment of his time.  If it weren't for my self-imposed ban on reading poetry, I might be tempted to take up an anthology.  Provided it was cross-referenced with the events on which he was waxing poetic, so I'd know what he was writing about.

That last note pretty much captures my reaction to the book.  I wanted more primary sources and less commentary.  We have transcripts of the speeches; we have Whitman's poetry; we have newspapers and letters from the front.  Those could have been arranged to tell the story better than the book's endless words--words that were frequently hard to read.  His description of the soldier' experiences at the battle of Shiloh was vivid--fascinating--depressing.  But a lot of the exposulatory text was disjointed and confusing--several times I'd get halfway through a paragraph only to look up and think, what the heck is he talking about?

So, if you're a history student wanting an introduction to the era, this book is an excellent jumping-off point.  If you're a casual but knowledgable reader, skip it.  The scope is too large; the focus alternates between macro precision and wide-angle blur.