What do you think?
Rate this book
1861: The Civil War Awakening
Goodreads Choice Award
Nominee for Best History & Biography (2011)As the United States marks the 150th anniversary of our defining national drama, 1861 presents a gripping and original account of how the Civil War began.
1861 is an epic of courage and heroism beyond the battlefields. Early in that fateful year, a second American revolution unfolded, inspiring a new generation to reject their parents’ faith in compromise and appeasement, to do the unthinkable in the name of an ideal. It set Abraham Lincoln on the path to greatness and millions of slaves on the road to freedom.
The book introduces us to a heretofore little-known cast of Civil War heroes—among them an acrobatic militia colonel, an explorer’s wife, an idealistic band of German immigrants, a regiment of New York City firemen, a community of Virginia slaves, and a young college professor who would one day become president. Adam Goodheart takes us from the corridors of the White House to the slums of Manhattan, from the mouth of the Chesapeake to the deserts of Nevada, from Boston Common to Alcatraz Island, vividly evoking the Union at this moment of ultimate crisis and decision.
1861 is an epic of courage and heroism beyond the battlefields. Early in that fateful year, a second American revolution unfolded, inspiring a new generation to reject their parents’ faith in compromise and appeasement, to do the unthinkable in the name of an ideal. It set Abraham Lincoln on the path to greatness and millions of slaves on the road to freedom.
The book introduces us to a heretofore little-known cast of Civil War heroes—among them an acrobatic militia colonel, an explorer’s wife, an idealistic band of German immigrants, a regiment of New York City firemen, a community of Virginia slaves, and a young college professor who would one day become president. Adam Goodheart takes us from the corridors of the White House to the slums of Manhattan, from the mouth of the Chesapeake to the deserts of Nevada, from Boston Common to Alcatraz Island, vividly evoking the Union at this moment of ultimate crisis and decision.
481 pages, Hardcover
First published April 5, 2011
About the author
Adam Goodheart
6 books53 followersAdam Goodheart is a historian, essayist, and journalist. His articles have appeared in National Geographic, Outside, Smithsonian, The Atlantic, and The New York Times Magazine, among others, and he is a regular columnist for the Times’ acclaimed Civil War series, “Disunion.” He lives in Washington, D.C., and on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where he is director of Washington College’s C. V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience. (source: adamgoodheart.com)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 485 reviews
April 26, 2016
I would consider myself a Civil War enthusiast. I read books about the war; watch movies and documentaries about the war; and I love visiting the battlefields, though one invariably finds that they are either fast-disappearing due to development, or so cluttered with bronze cannon and statuary that it is impossible to imagine what took place (and sometimes, you find both these things).
Admittedly, my interest has always been the interest of a ten year-old boy chasing his brother around with a cap gun while wearing a blue kepi. That is, I’ve always tended to focus on the “war” half of the Civil War equation, while mostly ignoring the “civil” side of things. Sure, the causes of the war are important, as was the financing of the war, and the demographic shifts it caused, and the changes in law and technology and society that ensued.
But the battles are the fun stuff. I mean, when it comes down to a choice between a discussion of Lincoln’s authority to suspend habeas corpus or Pickett’s Charge – well, it’s really not a choice at all. I’ll choose cold steel every time.
Thus, it’s a good thing that a book like Adam Goodheart’s 1861: A Civil War Awakening exists. It is a book without battles or bloodshed. Its scope, as the title asserts, is the first year of the Civil War, a year that saw only one major conflict (the First Battle of Bull Run, which took place in July 1861 and is not covered). Goodheart is not interested in military strategy, the composition of armies, or the clash of bayonets. He is not even that interested in a straight chronology of events. Instead, he has created a Civil War mood piece. His purpose, to which he succeeds, is to give contemporary readers an idea of what it felt like to witness this incredible drama unfold in real time. And it’s a testament to Goodheart’s talent that you never feel the lack of the cannon’s roar (the only military action described in any detail is the somewhat desultory, bloodless exchange at Fort Sumter).
While following a rough timeline, Goodheart incorporates a mosaic-like approach to this project. He focuses on certain characters or places or groups, and then follows that character or place or group through a short arc that describes their burgeoning awareness and response to secession and war. Looking back, it is easy for us to say that actual conflict was inevitable. In reading 1861, you realize that nothing was further from the truth. The people living out these times had no idea how this roll would unspool. They did not know whether there would be fighting; whether the South would simply be allowed to pick up their ball and go home; or whether there would be some grand compromise that would patch things back together.
Goodheart has chosen a wide variety of lenses through which to view this tumultuous year. He spends time with a famous president, Abraham Lincoln, and a less-famous future president, James Garfield, who was then a young representative from Ohio (sadly, Garfield, a dark horse presidential winner in 1881, would share Lincoln’s fate, though not his fame). He takes us to Charleston, South Carolina, where a southern-sympathizing Union major, taking his own initiative, makes the fateful decision to defend Fort Sumter, thereby forcing the Confederacy to fire the first shots of the war (ultimately dooming them as the aggressor). Also covered within Goodheart’s purview are the staunchly Unionist German immigrants of St. Louis (Frederick Douglass once wrote: “A German only has to be a German to be utterly opposed to slavery”), Jessie Benton Fremont and her efforts to keep California in the Union fold, and the darkly ironic existence of slavery in the Nation’s capital.
Goodheart maintains a good balance of the familiar with the fresh. Along with time devoted to Lincoln, one of the most written-about men in history, Goodheart also relies on diarists George Templeton Strong and Mary Chestnut, both of whom have become household names (sort of) since Ken Burns’ The Civil War.
The bulk of 1861, however, is devoted to less-glamorous figures, whose names have been either obscured or unduly tarnished by the passage of time. For instance, one of Goodheart’s central figures is the dashing young Elmer Ellsworth, who formed and trained a unit of Fire Zouaves (the 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment) patterned after French colonial troops that served in Algeria. Ellsworth had gained some earlier renown for leading a flamboyant militia unit that traveled around the country putting on drills for adoring crowds (they were more of a marching band than a combat force). The day after Virginia seceded, Lincoln ordered Ellsworth across the Potomac to Alexandria. While there, Ellsworth attempted to tear down a large Rebel flag hanging from a building called the Marshall House. The Marshall House’s owner murdered Ellsworth with a shotgun, as Ellsworth descended the steps. Briefly, Ellsworth was one of the most famous men in America, a young martyr to the cause of Union. After four years of blood war, followed by 146 years of discussion about that bloody war, Ellsworth name is mostly a footnote. Goodheart does a fine job giving him life once again.
When you stitch together a narrative, as Goodheart has done, some swatches are going to be better than others. I really enjoyed the chapter on John J. Crittenden, a Kentucky Senator who attempted to cobble together an 11th hour compromise to keep the South from seceding. The final product was called the Crittenden Compromise, and included six constitutional amendments meant to appease the South. The attempted Compromise was one-third nobility, and two-thirds groveling at the feet of the Slaveocracy. You have to respect Crittenden for doing what he thought he had to do to save his country; on the other hand, the South’s obdurate response is so infuriating that I wanted William T. Sherman to storm through the doors of Congress and punch some of those recalcitrant Southern politicians in the nuts.
On the other hand, I was less enamored with the section on James Garfield. Yes, Garfield is an overlooked historical figure. Yes, his nascent belief in civil rights makes you wonder what he might have done for this country, had Charles Guiteau not opened up on him with a revolver as Garfield walked through a Washington, D.C. train station. Still, I never felt any special illumination from the Garfield saga.
For me, the best part of 1861 is its limited reclamation of General Benjamin Butler from the trash bin of history (naturally, he has been placed in the trash bin by pro-Southern historians, since the Civil War is the only war on record in which the losers wrote the history). Goodheart’s handling of Butler exemplifies one of Goodheart’s virtues as an author: his ability to evoke a person via a thumbnail sketch:
Butler, a political appointee, was in charge of Fortress Monroe when he was confronted with three runaway slaves seeking asylum. Butler could have given the slaves back to their owners, who had the gall to demand their return. Indeed, under the Fugitive Slave Act, Butler arguably was required to consent to their return. Ever the lawyer, Butler decided that the Fugitive Slave Act did not apply, since the Southern states were no longer subject to federal law. Using a connotation that gained incredible traction, he deemed the slaves contraband – the lawful spoils of war.
Goodheart uses this mostly-forgotten event to embark on a wider discussion of slavery as the cause – and later the purpose – of the Civil War. He seems to take some enjoyment from the fact that a hideously ugly man with clever eyes, who proved woefully inept in the practice of the military arts, somehow became the jeweled bearing of a vault, upon which the terrible door of slavery finally slammed shut.
Beyond its structure and narrative choices, 1861 is simply a pleasure to read. Goodheart is a smooth writer, seamlessly merging quotations into the text, balancing vivid narrative with critical analysis, and presenting a scholarly work (the book is well sourced, and includes informative endnotes) in an easily-digestible form (the overall tone is conversational, with parenthetical digressions, an acute eye for detail, and a pleasant wit).
In my own studies of the Civil War, I have been prone to rushing towards “the good stuff.” I’ve never wanted to spend time on the Constitutional implications of secession, Buchanan’s ineffectual lame-duck attempts to avert a crisis, or even the symbolic exchange of artillery at Fort Sumter. Rather, in my own mind, the Civil War started at Bull Run and ended at Appomattox.
Adam Goodheart’s 1861 weaned me off my battle-fixation without a single symptom of withdrawal. He does not have an overarching theme; he does not set out to prove a thesis or ask us to totally reevaluate everything we know about the Civil War. Instead, he gives us a ground-level view of what it must have been like to experience this thing, this event, as it started to gain momentum.
The Grandmaster Savielly Tartakower famously said of the beginning of a chess match: “The mistakes are all waiting to be made.” I found myself thinking of that quotations as I finished 1861. The Civil War, as we now know it, comes neatly packaged. It lasted four years – a nice round number – and its central figure, Lincoln, was assassinated at its conclusion, giving the story a perfect ending (in a narrative sense only, obviously). The arc is almost too tidy. It has rising action, falling action, and the resonant theme of redemption through suffering. One hundred and fifty years later, it all seems ordained.
It didn't seem that way in 1861. All the mistakes were still waiting to be made. The most fascinating aspect of Goodheart’s book is seeing the ordinary people muddling through a momentous occurrence that seemed so far out of their control. In their very human responses, within their very limited spheres – Ellsworth tearing down a Rebel flag; Anderson deciding to hold Fort Sumter; Butler refusing to return escaped slaves – you see the small actions that, as they accumulated, shaped the grand events to come.
Admittedly, my interest has always been the interest of a ten year-old boy chasing his brother around with a cap gun while wearing a blue kepi. That is, I’ve always tended to focus on the “war” half of the Civil War equation, while mostly ignoring the “civil” side of things. Sure, the causes of the war are important, as was the financing of the war, and the demographic shifts it caused, and the changes in law and technology and society that ensued.
But the battles are the fun stuff. I mean, when it comes down to a choice between a discussion of Lincoln’s authority to suspend habeas corpus or Pickett’s Charge – well, it’s really not a choice at all. I’ll choose cold steel every time.
Thus, it’s a good thing that a book like Adam Goodheart’s 1861: A Civil War Awakening exists. It is a book without battles or bloodshed. Its scope, as the title asserts, is the first year of the Civil War, a year that saw only one major conflict (the First Battle of Bull Run, which took place in July 1861 and is not covered). Goodheart is not interested in military strategy, the composition of armies, or the clash of bayonets. He is not even that interested in a straight chronology of events. Instead, he has created a Civil War mood piece. His purpose, to which he succeeds, is to give contemporary readers an idea of what it felt like to witness this incredible drama unfold in real time. And it’s a testament to Goodheart’s talent that you never feel the lack of the cannon’s roar (the only military action described in any detail is the somewhat desultory, bloodless exchange at Fort Sumter).
While following a rough timeline, Goodheart incorporates a mosaic-like approach to this project. He focuses on certain characters or places or groups, and then follows that character or place or group through a short arc that describes their burgeoning awareness and response to secession and war. Looking back, it is easy for us to say that actual conflict was inevitable. In reading 1861, you realize that nothing was further from the truth. The people living out these times had no idea how this roll would unspool. They did not know whether there would be fighting; whether the South would simply be allowed to pick up their ball and go home; or whether there would be some grand compromise that would patch things back together.
Goodheart has chosen a wide variety of lenses through which to view this tumultuous year. He spends time with a famous president, Abraham Lincoln, and a less-famous future president, James Garfield, who was then a young representative from Ohio (sadly, Garfield, a dark horse presidential winner in 1881, would share Lincoln’s fate, though not his fame). He takes us to Charleston, South Carolina, where a southern-sympathizing Union major, taking his own initiative, makes the fateful decision to defend Fort Sumter, thereby forcing the Confederacy to fire the first shots of the war (ultimately dooming them as the aggressor). Also covered within Goodheart’s purview are the staunchly Unionist German immigrants of St. Louis (Frederick Douglass once wrote: “A German only has to be a German to be utterly opposed to slavery”), Jessie Benton Fremont and her efforts to keep California in the Union fold, and the darkly ironic existence of slavery in the Nation’s capital.
Goodheart maintains a good balance of the familiar with the fresh. Along with time devoted to Lincoln, one of the most written-about men in history, Goodheart also relies on diarists George Templeton Strong and Mary Chestnut, both of whom have become household names (sort of) since Ken Burns’ The Civil War.
The bulk of 1861, however, is devoted to less-glamorous figures, whose names have been either obscured or unduly tarnished by the passage of time. For instance, one of Goodheart’s central figures is the dashing young Elmer Ellsworth, who formed and trained a unit of Fire Zouaves (the 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment) patterned after French colonial troops that served in Algeria. Ellsworth had gained some earlier renown for leading a flamboyant militia unit that traveled around the country putting on drills for adoring crowds (they were more of a marching band than a combat force). The day after Virginia seceded, Lincoln ordered Ellsworth across the Potomac to Alexandria. While there, Ellsworth attempted to tear down a large Rebel flag hanging from a building called the Marshall House. The Marshall House’s owner murdered Ellsworth with a shotgun, as Ellsworth descended the steps. Briefly, Ellsworth was one of the most famous men in America, a young martyr to the cause of Union. After four years of blood war, followed by 146 years of discussion about that bloody war, Ellsworth name is mostly a footnote. Goodheart does a fine job giving him life once again.
When you stitch together a narrative, as Goodheart has done, some swatches are going to be better than others. I really enjoyed the chapter on John J. Crittenden, a Kentucky Senator who attempted to cobble together an 11th hour compromise to keep the South from seceding. The final product was called the Crittenden Compromise, and included six constitutional amendments meant to appease the South. The attempted Compromise was one-third nobility, and two-thirds groveling at the feet of the Slaveocracy. You have to respect Crittenden for doing what he thought he had to do to save his country; on the other hand, the South’s obdurate response is so infuriating that I wanted William T. Sherman to storm through the doors of Congress and punch some of those recalcitrant Southern politicians in the nuts.
On the other hand, I was less enamored with the section on James Garfield. Yes, Garfield is an overlooked historical figure. Yes, his nascent belief in civil rights makes you wonder what he might have done for this country, had Charles Guiteau not opened up on him with a revolver as Garfield walked through a Washington, D.C. train station. Still, I never felt any special illumination from the Garfield saga.
For me, the best part of 1861 is its limited reclamation of General Benjamin Butler from the trash bin of history (naturally, he has been placed in the trash bin by pro-Southern historians, since the Civil War is the only war on record in which the losers wrote the history). Goodheart’s handling of Butler exemplifies one of Goodheart’s virtues as an author: his ability to evoke a person via a thumbnail sketch:
[A]s far as faces went, his was not a pleasant one. It was the face of a man whom many people, in the years ahead, would call a brute, a beast, a cold-blooded murderer. It was a face that could easily make you believe such things: low, balding forehead; slack jowls; and a tight, mean little mouth beneath a drooping mustache. It would have seemed a face of almost animal-like stupidity, had it not been for the eyes. These glittered shrewdly, almost hidden amid crinkled folds of flesh, like dark little jewels in a nest of tissue paper. One of them had an odd sideways cast, as though its owner were always considering something else besides the thing in front of him.
Butler, a political appointee, was in charge of Fortress Monroe when he was confronted with three runaway slaves seeking asylum. Butler could have given the slaves back to their owners, who had the gall to demand their return. Indeed, under the Fugitive Slave Act, Butler arguably was required to consent to their return. Ever the lawyer, Butler decided that the Fugitive Slave Act did not apply, since the Southern states were no longer subject to federal law. Using a connotation that gained incredible traction, he deemed the slaves contraband – the lawful spoils of war.
Goodheart uses this mostly-forgotten event to embark on a wider discussion of slavery as the cause – and later the purpose – of the Civil War. He seems to take some enjoyment from the fact that a hideously ugly man with clever eyes, who proved woefully inept in the practice of the military arts, somehow became the jeweled bearing of a vault, upon which the terrible door of slavery finally slammed shut.
Beyond its structure and narrative choices, 1861 is simply a pleasure to read. Goodheart is a smooth writer, seamlessly merging quotations into the text, balancing vivid narrative with critical analysis, and presenting a scholarly work (the book is well sourced, and includes informative endnotes) in an easily-digestible form (the overall tone is conversational, with parenthetical digressions, an acute eye for detail, and a pleasant wit).
In my own studies of the Civil War, I have been prone to rushing towards “the good stuff.” I’ve never wanted to spend time on the Constitutional implications of secession, Buchanan’s ineffectual lame-duck attempts to avert a crisis, or even the symbolic exchange of artillery at Fort Sumter. Rather, in my own mind, the Civil War started at Bull Run and ended at Appomattox.
Adam Goodheart’s 1861 weaned me off my battle-fixation without a single symptom of withdrawal. He does not have an overarching theme; he does not set out to prove a thesis or ask us to totally reevaluate everything we know about the Civil War. Instead, he gives us a ground-level view of what it must have been like to experience this thing, this event, as it started to gain momentum.
The Grandmaster Savielly Tartakower famously said of the beginning of a chess match: “The mistakes are all waiting to be made.” I found myself thinking of that quotations as I finished 1861. The Civil War, as we now know it, comes neatly packaged. It lasted four years – a nice round number – and its central figure, Lincoln, was assassinated at its conclusion, giving the story a perfect ending (in a narrative sense only, obviously). The arc is almost too tidy. It has rising action, falling action, and the resonant theme of redemption through suffering. One hundred and fifty years later, it all seems ordained.
It didn't seem that way in 1861. All the mistakes were still waiting to be made. The most fascinating aspect of Goodheart’s book is seeing the ordinary people muddling through a momentous occurrence that seemed so far out of their control. In their very human responses, within their very limited spheres – Ellsworth tearing down a Rebel flag; Anderson deciding to hold Fort Sumter; Butler refusing to return escaped slaves – you see the small actions that, as they accumulated, shaped the grand events to come.
March 7, 2016
"This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union it is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life. Yielding to partial and temporary departures from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existence we contend."
-- Abraham Lincoln's First Message to Congress, at the Special Session. July 4, 1861.
One of the best histories I've read during the last couple years. I went in knowing, kinda, what I was getting into. '1861' was published in 2011 150 years after the start of the Civil War. Obviously, it was going to be about the start of the Civil War, duh. But the book is more than that. It is chapter, by chapter, a series of vignettes that try to capture the complexity and details of our nation at the start of the Civil War, during that fateful year. One chapter focuses on Major Robert Anderson and the officers and men who held Ft Sumter. Another chapter explores the 1861 from the perspective of James Garfield, an Ohio professor and preacher, later General and President, Another chapter follows Elmer Ellsworth, a charismatic Ohio youth who becomes a Colonel in charge of a flashy group of recruits modeled on the French Zouaves. Another beautifully written chapter relates the experiences of Jessie Fremont and the young reverend Thomas Starr King, who passionate Californian's who were largely responsible for keeping California in the Union. The book is filled with these stories, amazing all, that weave together like a giant flag or tapestry of our history. It isn't a book of battles as much as it is a book of people and one year. This is a book that couple be optioned seven or eight times. I can imagine several of these single chapters being made into amazing movies, but still, it seems impossible that any movie, or other art form could capture the elements found within this book as artistically and beautifully as Adam Goodhearted did with this masterful classic.
-- Abraham Lincoln's First Message to Congress, at the Special Session. July 4, 1861.
One of the best histories I've read during the last couple years. I went in knowing, kinda, what I was getting into. '1861' was published in 2011 150 years after the start of the Civil War. Obviously, it was going to be about the start of the Civil War, duh. But the book is more than that. It is chapter, by chapter, a series of vignettes that try to capture the complexity and details of our nation at the start of the Civil War, during that fateful year. One chapter focuses on Major Robert Anderson and the officers and men who held Ft Sumter. Another chapter explores the 1861 from the perspective of James Garfield, an Ohio professor and preacher, later General and President, Another chapter follows Elmer Ellsworth, a charismatic Ohio youth who becomes a Colonel in charge of a flashy group of recruits modeled on the French Zouaves. Another beautifully written chapter relates the experiences of Jessie Fremont and the young reverend Thomas Starr King, who passionate Californian's who were largely responsible for keeping California in the Union. The book is filled with these stories, amazing all, that weave together like a giant flag or tapestry of our history. It isn't a book of battles as much as it is a book of people and one year. This is a book that couple be optioned seven or eight times. I can imagine several of these single chapters being made into amazing movies, but still, it seems impossible that any movie, or other art form could capture the elements found within this book as artistically and beautifully as Adam Goodhearted did with this masterful classic.
August 20, 2022
This was a fresh take on the American Civil War. Adam Goodheart wrote a narrative without battles, without the violence, and the cost of life. Instead he pieced a work from multiple angles and the views from different lenses. The narrative primarily deals with events leading up to the Civil War in 1860 and focused mostly on the first year, hence the title 1861. Goodheart wove the political aspects, the social vantage, and historical context of what into turned into the Civil War. The author explained the weak President James Buchanan and his timid impotence on the nation's looming crises, tensions between the North and South, the futile Crittenden Compromise to maintain the status quo, succession, and the opening bloodless Battle of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. Goodheart wrote with a clean mixture of historian and journalist with crafted verse
I would definitely recommend this to anyone looking for a new take on the opening of the American Civil War. Thanks!
Time itself seemed to move here [Tidewater Virginia] like that today river, its ambivalent currents stirred first upstream, then down. By night, the water, the sharp-edged silhouette of the federal fort might seem to soften and sink, becoming again the low palisades that the first colonists had raised on the same spot two and a half centuries ago. The navy steamship moored in the fort's lee, might raise its black hull into the form of a bygone man-of-war. pg 295There was a lot in the book and none of it was boring, dull, and surprisingly remained free from information overload. The narrative wrote smoothly and articulately from beginning to end. Goodheart clearly is an experienced writer with credentials listing his as a historian and journalist. The back dust jacket listed him to write for National Geographic, Smithsonian, and as director of the Washington College's C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience.
I would definitely recommend this to anyone looking for a new take on the opening of the American Civil War. Thanks!
August 28, 2022
I have 12 pages of notes and excerpts from this excellent book. Can’t put all those comments into a review. A few to whet your appetite then. I read this book slowly because there is so much there. But it reads so smoothly, it’s hard to slow down. Will do a reread for sure. The main takeaway—the abolition of the institution and practice of slavery was at the forefront of this war, not a byproduct or convenient later addition.
This book spends the first 150 pages on the lead into the Civil War. It paints a detailed picture of how divided the country was, and yet, how few people wanted to fight. Abolitionist and secessionists were really fringe extreme parties. Abolitionists were not well-thought of. The Age of Compromise was rapidly coming to an end. But many, both North and South, did not want the Union to break up. The terrible compromise at the founding of the nation had to be resolved. It is not surprising that the party of slavery would attempt to enshrine and protect the “peculiar institution” in the US Constitution. In December 1860, Senator John J. Crittenden proposed six amendments to the Constitution that would establish slavery in perpetuity in the US. What is surprising is how many Northerners, Republicans, Democrats, businessmen, regular citizens came out in support of Crittenden.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/pr...
Even more surprising is the draft 13th amendment, passed in Congress on the eve of Lincoln’s inauguration. It also established slavery in perpetuity. Although it was never ratified by the states, there is no time limit on it and could still be voted on today. And still more surprising to me, Abraham Lincoln did not oppose this proposal, although he did not support it. The current 13th Amendment abolished slavery.
https://www.thoughtco.com/corwin-amen...
The South was not the only place where secession was on the table and seriously proposed:
Sometimes you know within a page or two that a book is going to be great. This is a 50 Star book. Goodheart opens with a wonderful description of Major Robert Anderson, Abner Doubleday and the dilemma facing them as South Carolina prepares to secede. The officers under Anderson (Doubleday included) want to abandon Ft Moultrie as indefensible and relocate to Ft Sumter. Anderson has requested this to his Washington superiors but the Secretary of War has denied it.
Occasionally Captain Doubleday would relieve his frustration by loading a howitzer with double rounds of canister shot, pointing it out to sea, and blasting a furious volley against the insolent Southern waves. It was the only thing he could do.
The breakup begins:
Just before sundown on December 20, the rooftops and church steeples of Charleston lit up with flashes of red, as the reflected lights of bonfires and Roman candles flared amid the gathering darkness. From across the harbor, the soldiers at Moultrie could hear booming cannons and pealing bells. The city was celebrating. Delegates to the Convention of the People of South Carolina, meeting downtown in St. Andrew’s Hall, had voted unanimously that afternoon to approve a resolution: “The Union now subsisting between South Carolina and other states, under the name of the ‘United States of America, is hereby dissolved.”
The war starts:
One of his excellent points, hot emotions ruled rather than cold strategy and analysis:
5 Stars on the GR scale, many more stars on my scale. Superb, if you want to understand the lead up to the American Civil War, this book is essential.
This book spends the first 150 pages on the lead into the Civil War. It paints a detailed picture of how divided the country was, and yet, how few people wanted to fight. Abolitionist and secessionists were really fringe extreme parties. Abolitionists were not well-thought of. The Age of Compromise was rapidly coming to an end. But many, both North and South, did not want the Union to break up. The terrible compromise at the founding of the nation had to be resolved. It is not surprising that the party of slavery would attempt to enshrine and protect the “peculiar institution” in the US Constitution. In December 1860, Senator John J. Crittenden proposed six amendments to the Constitution that would establish slavery in perpetuity in the US. What is surprising is how many Northerners, Republicans, Democrats, businessmen, regular citizens came out in support of Crittenden.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/pr...
Even more surprising is the draft 13th amendment, passed in Congress on the eve of Lincoln’s inauguration. It also established slavery in perpetuity. Although it was never ratified by the states, there is no time limit on it and could still be voted on today. And still more surprising to me, Abraham Lincoln did not oppose this proposal, although he did not support it. The current 13th Amendment abolished slavery.
https://www.thoughtco.com/corwin-amen...
The South was not the only place where secession was on the table and seriously proposed:
Sometimes you know within a page or two that a book is going to be great. This is a 50 Star book. Goodheart opens with a wonderful description of Major Robert Anderson, Abner Doubleday and the dilemma facing them as South Carolina prepares to secede. The officers under Anderson (Doubleday included) want to abandon Ft Moultrie as indefensible and relocate to Ft Sumter. Anderson has requested this to his Washington superiors but the Secretary of War has denied it.
Occasionally Captain Doubleday would relieve his frustration by loading a howitzer with double rounds of canister shot, pointing it out to sea, and blasting a furious volley against the insolent Southern waves. It was the only thing he could do.
The breakup begins:
Just before sundown on December 20, the rooftops and church steeples of Charleston lit up with flashes of red, as the reflected lights of bonfires and Roman candles flared amid the gathering darkness. From across the harbor, the soldiers at Moultrie could hear booming cannons and pealing bells. The city was celebrating. Delegates to the Convention of the People of South Carolina, meeting downtown in St. Andrew’s Hall, had voted unanimously that afternoon to approve a resolution: “The Union now subsisting between South Carolina and other states, under the name of the ‘United States of America, is hereby dissolved.”
The war starts:
One of his excellent points, hot emotions ruled rather than cold strategy and analysis:
5 Stars on the GR scale, many more stars on my scale. Superb, if you want to understand the lead up to the American Civil War, this book is essential.
January 3, 2016
150 years ago this month, Secessionist forces opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. After 34 hours hours of bombardment, Major Robert Anderson agreed to surrender the fort. The day's fighting resulted in no casualties on either side, except a donkey caught in the cross fire. Within a few years, maybe months, of the firing on Fort Sumter, the proceeding conflict has taken on an air of inevitability. "A house divided can not stand," as Lincoln said; the fundamental issue at stake would eventually have to be settled by violence. I aree that the war became inevitable at a certain point, whether it was with the election of a Republican president, the disintegration of the Whig Party in 1854, the invention of the cotton gin in 1793, the compromises made at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, or as far back as the arrival of the first African slaves in 1619. By December 1860, when South Carolina seceded, Southern secession had been a Damocles' sword hanging over the young republic for over 40 years.
Yet, at the same time, most Americans weren't expecting an imminent conflict in April 1860. There may have been problems, but these things had a history of working themselves out. Lost in many accounts of the origins of the Civil War is how quickly things escalated. The onset of the Civil War in 1861 may seem inevitable on a macro level, but not necessarily on a micro level. The propulsive momentum of events left most Americans, from Lincoln and Davis to ordinary citizens, struggling to accomodate with new realities.
Adam Goodheart's 1861: The Civil War Awakening is the story of the country's realization that this is happening. The book is a portrait of how Americans came to terms with and preparing themselves for the coming conflict.
Before I go further, allow me to quickly justify this book's existence. You would be justified see this book was published this year and ask yourself if we really need another general chronology of the Civil War. How much more is out there that hasn't been amply covered many times before? I'll answer by saying that this is not a traditional or 'been-there' Civil War book. 1861 is a somewhat misleading title, Goodheart does not aim to write a broad historical survey of a particular year. The book's chapters are each an in-depth portrait of how Americans reacted to the onset of the war on the micro-level. In fact, the subtitle, The Civil War Awakeninggives a far-better sense of what the book is. This format allows Goodheart to give a unique and refreshing perspective on familiar events.
The book opens conventionally in Charleston Harbor, but somewhat ironically in the last days of 1860. Although the importance of the actual 'battle' at Fort Sumter has been exaggerated, the effect of these events were extremely influential. Non-Civil War buffs may not be aware that Charleston Harbor had been at the center of national attention for months before the first shot was fired. In fact the first aggressive action of the Civil War occurred as early as December, when Anderson ordered the quiet evacuation of the impossible to defend Fort Moultrie and the consolidation of his garrison at the recently (kinda) completed Fort Sumter. This action did not come lightly. Anderson, a Kentucky native and Southern sympathizer, justified this by an artful interpretation of an order. Anderson himself probably knew his interpretation was not only erroneous, but directly contrary to the intention of his superior, the Secretary of War John Floyd, a Virginian who was not so discreetly using his position to secure arms for the soon-to-be Confederate states. Anderson's dilemma is an appropriate one to open the book with. 1861 was a year of conflicted or ambiguous loyalties and the difficult choices that ensued.
Following this introduction, Goodheart leaves Charleston for several chapters. If the national mood wasn't hell-bent on war in the early months of 1861, it wasn't exactly the epitome of brotherhood. By electing Abraham Lincoln president in November, forty percent of the country had to know they were casting votes for a man whom the vast majority of Southerners would find utterly unacceptable. Goodheart relates how there was a good deal of belligerence behind the 1860 election and the effect of a younger generation on the American politic. Republican voters went beyond exercising their democratic rights, and in many ways courted conflict with the slaveholding states. Meanwhile, Washington still a very Southern town where the consensus was on some sort of compromise, and Goodheart provides an intriguing portrait of the final, mostly pathetic, months of the Buchanan administration.
Everything changed after Sumter. The material is familiar, but Goodheart does an admirable job retelling how Lincoln exploited an impossible situation in a way that let the new president craft the narrative of the conflict. The surrender of Fort Sumter electrified and unified much of the remaining country. For the Confederacy, the handling of the Sumter crisis resulted in a mostly meaningless victory, but was certainly a tremendous strategic misstep. The argument could be made that the Confederacy would have won the war if they had let Sumter be. Goodheart then relates how loyalty to the Union was ensured in California and Missouri; albeit two different kinds of loyalty achieved in two different manners. Also, Goodheart portrays how the public began to come to initial terms with the sacrifices the war would demand, with the account of the life and death of Elmer Ellsworth.
Probably the high point of the book is the chapter devoted to General Benjamin Butler's decision to treat escaped slaves as contraband. Goodheart makes the case that Butler's decision, made at the location where the first African slaves arrived over two hundred years earlier, was the first real harbinger of the extinction of slavery in America. An abridged version of this chapter appeared in The New York Times a few weeks back, and is worth seeking out if you're not interested in the entire book. Goodheart expertly shows how Butler's decision not only changed the situation in Virginia, but irretrievably changed the national consensus. Finally, the book closes with Lincoln crafting his message to the special session of Congress which opened on July 4, the first time the body met since April. No matter how much some people focus on the societal aspect of the history, certain individual presences play a irreplaceable part. The fact remains that Lincoln knew that the direct cause of the Civil War was his election. Contrary to his address at Gettysburg two years later, Lincoln spent months on this message to Congress. Because he did the hard work two years earlier, Lincoln was able to repeat himself in a much shorter and much more poetic manner. Lincoln was able to distill his solution of the 'why are we fighting' question in the general population. It wasn't so much that he was able to move the population to him, as he was able to understand the irrepressible moment of events. Lincoln's understanding of the meaning behind the impersonal force of history was the rock on which eventual victory was built. Because of this, Lincoln's July 4th message to Congress is the perfect place for Goodheart's book to end.
1861 isn't concerned with generals, battles, etc. In fact, the last chapter takes place in July, a month before the first major conflict of the War. Actually, the books isn't really concerned with the Confederate side of the issue. That's not an issue because what the book is concerned about is the shaping of the Union resolve, and it would be this resolve that would be the main dynamic force behind the war. For all the talk of revolution, the Confederate Rebellion was a retrograde and traditional. The dynamism that influenced the country at large almost totally emerged from the Union side. Goodheart's book gives the reader some understanding of the initial sparks that fueled this dynamism that we are still coming to terms with 150 years later.
Yet, at the same time, most Americans weren't expecting an imminent conflict in April 1860. There may have been problems, but these things had a history of working themselves out. Lost in many accounts of the origins of the Civil War is how quickly things escalated. The onset of the Civil War in 1861 may seem inevitable on a macro level, but not necessarily on a micro level. The propulsive momentum of events left most Americans, from Lincoln and Davis to ordinary citizens, struggling to accomodate with new realities.
Adam Goodheart's 1861: The Civil War Awakening is the story of the country's realization that this is happening. The book is a portrait of how Americans came to terms with and preparing themselves for the coming conflict.
Before I go further, allow me to quickly justify this book's existence. You would be justified see this book was published this year and ask yourself if we really need another general chronology of the Civil War. How much more is out there that hasn't been amply covered many times before? I'll answer by saying that this is not a traditional or 'been-there' Civil War book. 1861 is a somewhat misleading title, Goodheart does not aim to write a broad historical survey of a particular year. The book's chapters are each an in-depth portrait of how Americans reacted to the onset of the war on the micro-level. In fact, the subtitle, The Civil War Awakeninggives a far-better sense of what the book is. This format allows Goodheart to give a unique and refreshing perspective on familiar events.
The book opens conventionally in Charleston Harbor, but somewhat ironically in the last days of 1860. Although the importance of the actual 'battle' at Fort Sumter has been exaggerated, the effect of these events were extremely influential. Non-Civil War buffs may not be aware that Charleston Harbor had been at the center of national attention for months before the first shot was fired. In fact the first aggressive action of the Civil War occurred as early as December, when Anderson ordered the quiet evacuation of the impossible to defend Fort Moultrie and the consolidation of his garrison at the recently (kinda) completed Fort Sumter. This action did not come lightly. Anderson, a Kentucky native and Southern sympathizer, justified this by an artful interpretation of an order. Anderson himself probably knew his interpretation was not only erroneous, but directly contrary to the intention of his superior, the Secretary of War John Floyd, a Virginian who was not so discreetly using his position to secure arms for the soon-to-be Confederate states. Anderson's dilemma is an appropriate one to open the book with. 1861 was a year of conflicted or ambiguous loyalties and the difficult choices that ensued.
Following this introduction, Goodheart leaves Charleston for several chapters. If the national mood wasn't hell-bent on war in the early months of 1861, it wasn't exactly the epitome of brotherhood. By electing Abraham Lincoln president in November, forty percent of the country had to know they were casting votes for a man whom the vast majority of Southerners would find utterly unacceptable. Goodheart relates how there was a good deal of belligerence behind the 1860 election and the effect of a younger generation on the American politic. Republican voters went beyond exercising their democratic rights, and in many ways courted conflict with the slaveholding states. Meanwhile, Washington still a very Southern town where the consensus was on some sort of compromise, and Goodheart provides an intriguing portrait of the final, mostly pathetic, months of the Buchanan administration.
Everything changed after Sumter. The material is familiar, but Goodheart does an admirable job retelling how Lincoln exploited an impossible situation in a way that let the new president craft the narrative of the conflict. The surrender of Fort Sumter electrified and unified much of the remaining country. For the Confederacy, the handling of the Sumter crisis resulted in a mostly meaningless victory, but was certainly a tremendous strategic misstep. The argument could be made that the Confederacy would have won the war if they had let Sumter be. Goodheart then relates how loyalty to the Union was ensured in California and Missouri; albeit two different kinds of loyalty achieved in two different manners. Also, Goodheart portrays how the public began to come to initial terms with the sacrifices the war would demand, with the account of the life and death of Elmer Ellsworth.
Probably the high point of the book is the chapter devoted to General Benjamin Butler's decision to treat escaped slaves as contraband. Goodheart makes the case that Butler's decision, made at the location where the first African slaves arrived over two hundred years earlier, was the first real harbinger of the extinction of slavery in America. An abridged version of this chapter appeared in The New York Times a few weeks back, and is worth seeking out if you're not interested in the entire book. Goodheart expertly shows how Butler's decision not only changed the situation in Virginia, but irretrievably changed the national consensus. Finally, the book closes with Lincoln crafting his message to the special session of Congress which opened on July 4, the first time the body met since April. No matter how much some people focus on the societal aspect of the history, certain individual presences play a irreplaceable part. The fact remains that Lincoln knew that the direct cause of the Civil War was his election. Contrary to his address at Gettysburg two years later, Lincoln spent months on this message to Congress. Because he did the hard work two years earlier, Lincoln was able to repeat himself in a much shorter and much more poetic manner. Lincoln was able to distill his solution of the 'why are we fighting' question in the general population. It wasn't so much that he was able to move the population to him, as he was able to understand the irrepressible moment of events. Lincoln's understanding of the meaning behind the impersonal force of history was the rock on which eventual victory was built. Because of this, Lincoln's July 4th message to Congress is the perfect place for Goodheart's book to end.
1861 isn't concerned with generals, battles, etc. In fact, the last chapter takes place in July, a month before the first major conflict of the War. Actually, the books isn't really concerned with the Confederate side of the issue. That's not an issue because what the book is concerned about is the shaping of the Union resolve, and it would be this resolve that would be the main dynamic force behind the war. For all the talk of revolution, the Confederate Rebellion was a retrograde and traditional. The dynamism that influenced the country at large almost totally emerged from the Union side. Goodheart's book gives the reader some understanding of the initial sparks that fueled this dynamism that we are still coming to terms with 150 years later.
August 31, 2021
1861: The Civil War Awakening by Adam Goodheart
This history book is a fascinating window into America at the beginning of the Civil War. It contains nine chapters covering the first six months of 1861:
1. Wide Awake - this intriguing chapter bridges the beginning of the republic with the Civil War. It focuses on Ralph Farnham, a war hero from Maine who had fought at Bunker Hill in 1775 and other technological anachronisms like the telegraph and railroad that weren't even imagined way back in 1775. By late December 1860, Farnham was a very old man when he died at his home in Maine, the same day that Federal troops abandoned Fort Moultrie in Charleston to make their stand at the better reinforced Fort Sumter across the harbor. 5 stars
2. The Old Gentlemen - Sen. Crittenden from Kentucky, eldest Senator, was supposed to rally the North and South to compromise. "All the wrong is never on one side, or all the right on the other" as he was fond of saying. But despite Crittenden's impassioned pleas and a notable Senate speech in late 1860, the Southern conspirators' minds were made up following Lincoln's election victory. Since the Southern radical Senators comprised such a large block and were strongly supported by the southern voters en masse, this left the Northerners, many of whom were not abolitionists, with little to compromise on. And outgoing President Buchanan, normally not a disagreeable fellow but hardly a leader, had long since checked out and stopped offering public guidance. He simply did not want to see a war start on his watch and so appeased the Southern gentlemen when they came to see him about the federal forts in South Carolina. 4 stars
3. Forces of Nature - this chapter focuses on president-elect Lincoln as he travels through a prosperous Ohio which would produce some six presidents in the next fifty years. The chapter also highlights a young and insightful Ohio politician named James Garfield who like his idol Lincoln was also born in a log cabin and the last such president to be born on the frontier. Ohio was also the home of a sizable population of abolitionists and when the slave catchers captured fugitive Lucy Bagby and returned her to Virginia, the incident only solidified the resolve of abolitionists like Garfield. 4.5 stars
4. Shot in the Dark - this chapter was about the surrender of Fort Sumter. Although there were a few insights I learned about one Major Anderson, this event in U.S. History has been covered so many times. 3 stars.
5. The Volunteer - we learn about Elmer Ellsworth who was one of Lincoln's best friends from Springfield and led the NY Zouaves. Sadly he became the first Union death of the war when he is shot during the occupation of Alexandria. A wonderful chapter on a secondary character but representative of the book. 5 stars.
6. Gateways to the West - largely concerned with St. Louis and the heroic role of the German brewers who took up arms against the "Confederate" governor of Missouri who tried to raid the Federal armory. There's even a cameo by U.S. Grant who was a private citizen at the time. I knew nothing of this historical event. My favorite chapter. 5 stars.
7. The Crossing - a continuation of the Elmer Ellsworth story. Ellsworth now a colonel stays with Lincoln at the White House as the Zouaves are now stationed in D.C. Ellsworth is close with Tad and Willie. Across the river in Alexandria, a man at the Marshall is flying an oversize flag. When Union troops go to occupy Alexandria, Ellsworth goes to the home and removes the flag. Sadly he becomes the first Union death of the war when he is shot in retaliation. Lincoln upon hearing the news hours later, uncharacteristically bursts into tears. Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote an article about Ellsworth and the house he died in. A few weeks later Union soldiers used Ellsworth as a rallying cry during the 1st Battle of Bull Run. 5 stars
8. Freedom's Fortress - this chapter covers Butler's decision at Fort Monroe to provide safe harbor to hundreds of fugitive slaves, many of whom would eventually fight for the Union. 4 stars
9. Independence Day - short chapter on how the North and South celebrated the 4th of July. 3.5 stars.
This book is special because it adds richness to the Civil War story. It covers several distinct narratives, with nuance not seen in many other books on the Civil War that just focus on battles.
5 stars. A good read for anyone who has an interest in Civil War History or anyone who likes narrative history.
This history book is a fascinating window into America at the beginning of the Civil War. It contains nine chapters covering the first six months of 1861:
1. Wide Awake - this intriguing chapter bridges the beginning of the republic with the Civil War. It focuses on Ralph Farnham, a war hero from Maine who had fought at Bunker Hill in 1775 and other technological anachronisms like the telegraph and railroad that weren't even imagined way back in 1775. By late December 1860, Farnham was a very old man when he died at his home in Maine, the same day that Federal troops abandoned Fort Moultrie in Charleston to make their stand at the better reinforced Fort Sumter across the harbor. 5 stars
2. The Old Gentlemen - Sen. Crittenden from Kentucky, eldest Senator, was supposed to rally the North and South to compromise. "All the wrong is never on one side, or all the right on the other" as he was fond of saying. But despite Crittenden's impassioned pleas and a notable Senate speech in late 1860, the Southern conspirators' minds were made up following Lincoln's election victory. Since the Southern radical Senators comprised such a large block and were strongly supported by the southern voters en masse, this left the Northerners, many of whom were not abolitionists, with little to compromise on. And outgoing President Buchanan, normally not a disagreeable fellow but hardly a leader, had long since checked out and stopped offering public guidance. He simply did not want to see a war start on his watch and so appeased the Southern gentlemen when they came to see him about the federal forts in South Carolina. 4 stars
3. Forces of Nature - this chapter focuses on president-elect Lincoln as he travels through a prosperous Ohio which would produce some six presidents in the next fifty years. The chapter also highlights a young and insightful Ohio politician named James Garfield who like his idol Lincoln was also born in a log cabin and the last such president to be born on the frontier. Ohio was also the home of a sizable population of abolitionists and when the slave catchers captured fugitive Lucy Bagby and returned her to Virginia, the incident only solidified the resolve of abolitionists like Garfield. 4.5 stars
4. Shot in the Dark - this chapter was about the surrender of Fort Sumter. Although there were a few insights I learned about one Major Anderson, this event in U.S. History has been covered so many times. 3 stars.
5. The Volunteer - we learn about Elmer Ellsworth who was one of Lincoln's best friends from Springfield and led the NY Zouaves. Sadly he became the first Union death of the war when he is shot during the occupation of Alexandria. A wonderful chapter on a secondary character but representative of the book. 5 stars.
6. Gateways to the West - largely concerned with St. Louis and the heroic role of the German brewers who took up arms against the "Confederate" governor of Missouri who tried to raid the Federal armory. There's even a cameo by U.S. Grant who was a private citizen at the time. I knew nothing of this historical event. My favorite chapter. 5 stars.
7. The Crossing - a continuation of the Elmer Ellsworth story. Ellsworth now a colonel stays with Lincoln at the White House as the Zouaves are now stationed in D.C. Ellsworth is close with Tad and Willie. Across the river in Alexandria, a man at the Marshall is flying an oversize flag. When Union troops go to occupy Alexandria, Ellsworth goes to the home and removes the flag. Sadly he becomes the first Union death of the war when he is shot in retaliation. Lincoln upon hearing the news hours later, uncharacteristically bursts into tears. Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote an article about Ellsworth and the house he died in. A few weeks later Union soldiers used Ellsworth as a rallying cry during the 1st Battle of Bull Run. 5 stars
8. Freedom's Fortress - this chapter covers Butler's decision at Fort Monroe to provide safe harbor to hundreds of fugitive slaves, many of whom would eventually fight for the Union. 4 stars
9. Independence Day - short chapter on how the North and South celebrated the 4th of July. 3.5 stars.
This book is special because it adds richness to the Civil War story. It covers several distinct narratives, with nuance not seen in many other books on the Civil War that just focus on battles.
5 stars. A good read for anyone who has an interest in Civil War History or anyone who likes narrative history.
March 18, 2021
An Academic Overview
I enjoyed "1861: The Civil War Awakening" by Adam Goodheart.
It was very well written and easy to follow. I loved how the author took time to make each character and incident call me alive.
Recommend to history buffs.
I enjoyed "1861: The Civil War Awakening" by Adam Goodheart.
It was very well written and easy to follow. I loved how the author took time to make each character and incident call me alive.
Recommend to history buffs.
September 22, 2017
I found this book thanks to the positive review of a GR friend (thanks Jim). The friendships GR cultivates is one of its best features. Now if only they would create a platform so that GR friends could engage in group messaging and discussion that would be fantastic. I guess I'll give them time to think about that as I'm sure one day one of those geeks will think of this as another way to confuse old timers with another hi-tech application.
Anyway those of us that enjoy reading history are all too familiar with the major events and personalities of history. We become so familiar that, at times, the material can become boring when nothing new is developed or opined. For that reason I really enjoy finding a book like this one. This book does deal with familiar events, at least the events occurring in 1861 and 1860 but it does something different with those events. It tells us how those major events and personalities were perceived by the common people that witnessed them and had to live with their results. It also gives us an understanding that some of these major events may have even been the result of actions by ordinary or uncredited actors in history. The notion that General Butler is credited with creating the concept of "contraband" to classify runaway slaves is one thing but that his actions were the foundation for the Emancipation Proclamation is quite another but it is probably true. The book also dwells on the perceptions people had of Lincoln as he entered the White House and how both the people and Lincoln evolved their thinking during the entry phase of the Lincoln Administration. I found this book to be most enlightening and in our present circumstances most reassuring. If the American people weathered what started in 1861 then shouldn't we be able to weather our present differences? I sure hope so. If not then we have shamed those, all of those, that went before us.
Anyway those of us that enjoy reading history are all too familiar with the major events and personalities of history. We become so familiar that, at times, the material can become boring when nothing new is developed or opined. For that reason I really enjoy finding a book like this one. This book does deal with familiar events, at least the events occurring in 1861 and 1860 but it does something different with those events. It tells us how those major events and personalities were perceived by the common people that witnessed them and had to live with their results. It also gives us an understanding that some of these major events may have even been the result of actions by ordinary or uncredited actors in history. The notion that General Butler is credited with creating the concept of "contraband" to classify runaway slaves is one thing but that his actions were the foundation for the Emancipation Proclamation is quite another but it is probably true. The book also dwells on the perceptions people had of Lincoln as he entered the White House and how both the people and Lincoln evolved their thinking during the entry phase of the Lincoln Administration. I found this book to be most enlightening and in our present circumstances most reassuring. If the American people weathered what started in 1861 then shouldn't we be able to weather our present differences? I sure hope so. If not then we have shamed those, all of those, that went before us.
October 17, 2020
Just a few quick comments about this uniquely readable episodic narrative history of events and interesting people in the period just before and after Fort Sumter. I enjoyed the book, which contains 35 percent footnotes, according to my Kindle—so it is a relatively short history, but contains a compendium of fascinating source material for history scholars and teachers.
I learned more about the Wide Awakes than I had ever learned before. They were a nationwide Northern movement (they were driven out in the South) that soon replaced the Rail-splitters, who were Lincoln partisans. The Wide Awakes marched by hundreds and thousands in close formation, wearing dark oilcloth cloaks, carrying torches in dark streets. They didn’t speak, but were known for their opposition to slavery. Their dramatic silence caught on, and Irish, German, and various company towns and farmers across the country started their own branches. Military officers, including U.S. Grant, even taught them to march properly. (In St. Louis, a shop assistant and former army lieutenant named Ulysses Grant often coached the local Wide Awakes.)
“The sinister symbol of the new organization, painted on its banners and printed on its membership certificates, was a single all-seeing, unblinking eye.”
“The one thing nearly all members had in common is that they were young—many were teenagers not even old enough to vote.”
The author calls the Wide Awake rally of October 16, 1860, “the last great parade of peace,” citing this contemporary report of the event:
“As the banners passed, he read them one by one: Vigilance the Price of Liberty; No More Slave Territory; The Pilgrims Did Not Found an Empire for Slavery. But the sight that made his heart leap was the company of West Boston Wide Awakes: two hundred black men marching proudly in uniform, keeping stride in perfect tempo with their white comrades, under a banner that read God Never Made a Tyrant or a Slave.”
I learned another surprising fact in the section about California, admitted to the Union as a non-slave State in 1850. I had not realized the strength of the Southern grandees in formation of the large estates that were the political power in California. According to the record, “Though California may officially have been free territory, its political leadership was still dominated by Southern sympathizers—voters called them the Chivalry faction, or the Chivs. No Northern state had more draconian laws restricting the lives and rights of its black inhabitants.” So California (and, later, Southwest Washington and Oregon) had a racist cohort in their early history that affected their laws from territorial times.
A considerable section of the book was devoted to the siege of Fort Sumter, which was probably about as tedious as the actual siege, without the hunger and uncertainty of the actual event.
The story of how slaves came to be called contraband at Fort Monroe by the Yankee lawyer major general Benjamin Butler, was my favorite part of the story. It was revealing that the absurdity of classifying humans as property seemed to couch a central problem of emancipation into a kind of nonsensical humorous approach whereby this comedy of necessity—protecting runaway slaves as a policy to defeat Southern slaveholders—changed many in the North to support abolition, and even eventual emancipation.
The evolving idea of emancipation of slaves and abolition of slavery as being central to the war for Lincoln and the North is the most important focus of the book. By July 4, 1861, Lincoln has decided on his course, and his resolve never falters after he finishes the speech that hints at his course—a speech that will be distilled two years later, to become the ringing phrases of the Gettysburg address. But the author says all of this much better than I. A very enjoyable and informative reading experience.
I learned more about the Wide Awakes than I had ever learned before. They were a nationwide Northern movement (they were driven out in the South) that soon replaced the Rail-splitters, who were Lincoln partisans. The Wide Awakes marched by hundreds and thousands in close formation, wearing dark oilcloth cloaks, carrying torches in dark streets. They didn’t speak, but were known for their opposition to slavery. Their dramatic silence caught on, and Irish, German, and various company towns and farmers across the country started their own branches. Military officers, including U.S. Grant, even taught them to march properly. (In St. Louis, a shop assistant and former army lieutenant named Ulysses Grant often coached the local Wide Awakes.)
“The sinister symbol of the new organization, painted on its banners and printed on its membership certificates, was a single all-seeing, unblinking eye.”
“The one thing nearly all members had in common is that they were young—many were teenagers not even old enough to vote.”
The author calls the Wide Awake rally of October 16, 1860, “the last great parade of peace,” citing this contemporary report of the event:
“As the banners passed, he read them one by one: Vigilance the Price of Liberty; No More Slave Territory; The Pilgrims Did Not Found an Empire for Slavery. But the sight that made his heart leap was the company of West Boston Wide Awakes: two hundred black men marching proudly in uniform, keeping stride in perfect tempo with their white comrades, under a banner that read God Never Made a Tyrant or a Slave.”
I learned another surprising fact in the section about California, admitted to the Union as a non-slave State in 1850. I had not realized the strength of the Southern grandees in formation of the large estates that were the political power in California. According to the record, “Though California may officially have been free territory, its political leadership was still dominated by Southern sympathizers—voters called them the Chivalry faction, or the Chivs. No Northern state had more draconian laws restricting the lives and rights of its black inhabitants.” So California (and, later, Southwest Washington and Oregon) had a racist cohort in their early history that affected their laws from territorial times.
A considerable section of the book was devoted to the siege of Fort Sumter, which was probably about as tedious as the actual siege, without the hunger and uncertainty of the actual event.
The story of how slaves came to be called contraband at Fort Monroe by the Yankee lawyer major general Benjamin Butler, was my favorite part of the story. It was revealing that the absurdity of classifying humans as property seemed to couch a central problem of emancipation into a kind of nonsensical humorous approach whereby this comedy of necessity—protecting runaway slaves as a policy to defeat Southern slaveholders—changed many in the North to support abolition, and even eventual emancipation.
The evolving idea of emancipation of slaves and abolition of slavery as being central to the war for Lincoln and the North is the most important focus of the book. By July 4, 1861, Lincoln has decided on his course, and his resolve never falters after he finishes the speech that hints at his course—a speech that will be distilled two years later, to become the ringing phrases of the Gettysburg address. But the author says all of this much better than I. A very enjoyable and informative reading experience.
November 21, 2014
Adam Goodheart recounts the events both large and small that define the character of America, as the war came down around it. Despite the extreme polarization, it does not seem that many expected a real war and certainly did not understand the destruction it would bring.
There are glimpses of the ineffectual President Buchanan in his last days in office and the young future President Garfield growing in political awareness. Wide-Awake marches are described as is the story of re-captured slave Lucy Bagby, Lincoln’s train ride to Washington, DC and many other events. You see imagery of the rail splitter and meet Senator Crittenden whose advocacy for compromise is lost in the extremely polarized climate.
It was a great book, which, for me included three highlights.
The first was the detail on the seizure of Fort Sumter. Later in the book when you learn about Buchanan’s neglect of the Federal Arsenal in Missouri, you see how without federal support (Buchanan’s neglect) or citizens taking the initiative, bloodless surrender of federal property was easy. (Page 139 lists the federal property seizures before the firing on Fort Sumter.) Goodheart tells the human story of a commander, sympathetic to the south who faces off his former West Point student leading the Confederacy and the political story of the relief mission and the Union surrender/public relations victory. It was not as simple as in high school history where you learn that shots were fired and the war began.
Next highlight was the chapter “Freedom’s Fortress” which shows how a “contraband policy” for fugitive slaves evolved. Especially of interest was the character of General Butler and how this “policy” played out in different circumstances.
The third highlight (for me) was the short chapter on Lincoln’s July 4, 1861 address to Congress and how it capsulized Lincoln’s thoughts and presaged the Gettysburg Address.
There is detail on the flamboyant Zouaves (which had been a mystery to me) and the sad fate of the brigade and its leader/founder. There is detail on the political climates of California and Missouri and the individuals who were instrumental in their staying with the Union.
The “Postscripts” give the later history of many of the people who made the book so alive.
The author succeeds in defining how Americans “woke up” to this war. You see how the south began to suffer its unintended consequences and the north, once captured by the visual valor of the Zouaves, learned what war was really about.
The book is a good read for most Civil War readers.
There are glimpses of the ineffectual President Buchanan in his last days in office and the young future President Garfield growing in political awareness. Wide-Awake marches are described as is the story of re-captured slave Lucy Bagby, Lincoln’s train ride to Washington, DC and many other events. You see imagery of the rail splitter and meet Senator Crittenden whose advocacy for compromise is lost in the extremely polarized climate.
It was a great book, which, for me included three highlights.
The first was the detail on the seizure of Fort Sumter. Later in the book when you learn about Buchanan’s neglect of the Federal Arsenal in Missouri, you see how without federal support (Buchanan’s neglect) or citizens taking the initiative, bloodless surrender of federal property was easy. (Page 139 lists the federal property seizures before the firing on Fort Sumter.) Goodheart tells the human story of a commander, sympathetic to the south who faces off his former West Point student leading the Confederacy and the political story of the relief mission and the Union surrender/public relations victory. It was not as simple as in high school history where you learn that shots were fired and the war began.
Next highlight was the chapter “Freedom’s Fortress” which shows how a “contraband policy” for fugitive slaves evolved. Especially of interest was the character of General Butler and how this “policy” played out in different circumstances.
The third highlight (for me) was the short chapter on Lincoln’s July 4, 1861 address to Congress and how it capsulized Lincoln’s thoughts and presaged the Gettysburg Address.
There is detail on the flamboyant Zouaves (which had been a mystery to me) and the sad fate of the brigade and its leader/founder. There is detail on the political climates of California and Missouri and the individuals who were instrumental in their staying with the Union.
The “Postscripts” give the later history of many of the people who made the book so alive.
The author succeeds in defining how Americans “woke up” to this war. You see how the south began to suffer its unintended consequences and the north, once captured by the visual valor of the Zouaves, learned what war was really about.
The book is a good read for most Civil War readers.
May 31, 2011
This is an extraordinary piece of work -- extremely well-written history that subtlety makes three major arguments without ever being heavy-handed. The first is to demonstrate how the Civil War was entirely about slavery ***even when individuals were acting out of other motives.*** In other words, while many people took sides and acted out of a conscious desire to preserve the union, they would never have had to take sides or actions if it were not for slavery. And Goodheart demonstrates that be mid-1861, Emancipation was inevitable.
The second argument is Lincoln's, to which Goodheart adheres: it's the argument against secession in the abstract, and it's presented here clearly and cogently. (I still have some reservations about any contract that can never be undone, but at least I now perceive the philosophy in a much deeper way.)
And finally, the book itself is a counter to the current-day apologists for the Confederacy. This is the most obvious argument, but one, alas, that still needs stating. By the end of this book, one can have no doubt that the Confederacy was without a shard of moral or intellectual justification.
The second argument is Lincoln's, to which Goodheart adheres: it's the argument against secession in the abstract, and it's presented here clearly and cogently. (I still have some reservations about any contract that can never be undone, but at least I now perceive the philosophy in a much deeper way.)
And finally, the book itself is a counter to the current-day apologists for the Confederacy. This is the most obvious argument, but one, alas, that still needs stating. By the end of this book, one can have no doubt that the Confederacy was without a shard of moral or intellectual justification.
January 4, 2024
I don’t know why I do it to myself. I am somehow drawn to, and yet tend not to like, history books that focus on a specific year, as an arbitrary measure of significance. I tend not to like cultural histories, which talk around a historical event or era with a collection of trivia about other events that happened contemporaneously and what people of the time thought about them. And I definitely don’t like books that are insufferably overwritten with long, meandering, superfluous, extraneous anecdotes and descriptions in the style of Ted Widmer’s Lincoln on the Verge, which a lot of people liked but I just couldn’t bear.
So I picked up this book, which focuses on a specific year, takes a cultural-history approach to the dawn of the Civil War - and whose author uses his acknowledgements to thank his friend and colleague Ted Widmer! Widmer’s writing, he says, “sets a high standard indeed” and he thanks him for “reading my entire manuscript and offering insights on subjects from beards to baseball, as few but he can.”
Oh, but don’t sell yourself short, Adam Goodheart, you can write about beards and baseball, and comets and cotton and trains and telegraphs with the best of them. All of those things and more are in this book, which also finds some time to discuss the outbreak of the Civil War.
The book’s prologue seems promising, as Goodheart kicks things off with a compelling look at prewar Fort Sumter, then explains his effort to broaden the familiar story of the war’s start beyond the familiar “parallel dramas in Charleston and Washington.” Instead, after knocking Civil War books that recount “which general’s cavalry came charging over which hill,” Goodheart tells of his aim to instead share personal stories of individuals across the country, what they thought and how they were impacted by the outbreak of war, as inspired by his discovery of a cache of letters from an unnamed family who shared their thoughts about the looming war.
The narrative that follows, however, does not focus on this family, on similarly unknown correspondents, or on a diverse cross section of individuals, but on a handful of not-quite-household names that are still familiar to those acquainted with the time period, like James Garfield, Jessie Benton Fremont and Elmer Ellsworth - all of them, incidentally, Northerners. There are other individuals whose stories are briefly sprinkled throughout, including some actual Southerners, but those named above are largely the individuals who get chapter- (in some cases chapters-) length treatment.
Their stories, though, are largely obscured by paragraphs upon paragraphs and pages upon pages of ornately-written anecdotes, background and exposition. “Eastward ran the train, through thawing fields where green seedlings of winter wheat were taking early root,” one chapter begins. Intriguing? Perhaps. The train passed “mere villages, most of them - scatterings of clapboard houses, thin and white as a child’s paper cutouts - but they possessed a certain dignity and sense of purpose that made them pleasing to the eye of a passing traveler.” Still intrigued? Or getting a bit annoyed, wondering where this is going? “The hurried engine and its three cars barely slackened their pace; just enough for the crowd to admire its bunting draperies trimmed with boughs of evergreen…”
Ok, enough already, what is the point of this? A full seven paragraphs of this later, we find out that the train being described is the one carrying Abraham Lincoln to his inaugural. Why, it’s the very same journey that Ted Widmer floridly described in his own book!
I suppose some readers are drawn in by writing like this - and I will grant that Goodheart’s prose is not as hackneyed and groan-inducing as Widmer’s - but to me, it’s still a distracting and unnecessary focus on style over substance, where the professed cleverness of the prose is seemingly more important than the information it’s meant to impart. I began to find that I could skim or skip entire paragraphs at a time without missing a thing - which I did with increasing frequency as the book went on, in an effort to hasten its end.
If you can discern the actual substance of the story amid all of this purple prose, some of the individuals highlighted have compelling stories - the aforementioned Elmer Ellsworth, who became the first Union officer to die in the war, and Major Robert Anderson, who commanded Fort Sumter. Others, like Fremont and Garfield, don’t seem as necessary to the narrative. And as noted earlier, there’s very little perspective from the southern side - Goodheart spends a moment or two heaping scorn on Confederate leaders as a group, but makes little attempt to portray or understand the average Southerner's perspective, how they justified defending the South, and what cause they believed they were fighting for. It’s difficult to tell the story of an entire country, over the course of an entire year, kicking off an entire war, while focusing on only one side of the conflict.
In the end, it’s somewhat unclear what all of this is meant to convey and what Goodheart is trying to say, other than just providing us with a snapshot in time without making a larger point. If anything, it appears to be the story of a handful of individuals who found themselves on the precipice of a new era. But there are many other histories of Fort Sumter, other cultural histories of the time, other compilations of stories of how individuals experienced the era, that are better than this book, which tries to do all of those things at once, and then buries it all under the weight of its own overwritten prose.
And yet, just as with Widmer’s book, my opinion of this one seems to go against the grain of most other reviews here. So don’t take my word for it - if you like Widmer, and you liked the passages I quoted above, then go for it. As for me, I will learn to avoid history books that focus on a specific year, I’ll think twice before reading cultural histories of an era, and in order to avoid unpleasant surprises when deciding whether to read an unfamiliar author’s book - I’ll always read the acknowledgments first.
So I picked up this book, which focuses on a specific year, takes a cultural-history approach to the dawn of the Civil War - and whose author uses his acknowledgements to thank his friend and colleague Ted Widmer! Widmer’s writing, he says, “sets a high standard indeed” and he thanks him for “reading my entire manuscript and offering insights on subjects from beards to baseball, as few but he can.”
Oh, but don’t sell yourself short, Adam Goodheart, you can write about beards and baseball, and comets and cotton and trains and telegraphs with the best of them. All of those things and more are in this book, which also finds some time to discuss the outbreak of the Civil War.
The book’s prologue seems promising, as Goodheart kicks things off with a compelling look at prewar Fort Sumter, then explains his effort to broaden the familiar story of the war’s start beyond the familiar “parallel dramas in Charleston and Washington.” Instead, after knocking Civil War books that recount “which general’s cavalry came charging over which hill,” Goodheart tells of his aim to instead share personal stories of individuals across the country, what they thought and how they were impacted by the outbreak of war, as inspired by his discovery of a cache of letters from an unnamed family who shared their thoughts about the looming war.
The narrative that follows, however, does not focus on this family, on similarly unknown correspondents, or on a diverse cross section of individuals, but on a handful of not-quite-household names that are still familiar to those acquainted with the time period, like James Garfield, Jessie Benton Fremont and Elmer Ellsworth - all of them, incidentally, Northerners. There are other individuals whose stories are briefly sprinkled throughout, including some actual Southerners, but those named above are largely the individuals who get chapter- (in some cases chapters-) length treatment.
Their stories, though, are largely obscured by paragraphs upon paragraphs and pages upon pages of ornately-written anecdotes, background and exposition. “Eastward ran the train, through thawing fields where green seedlings of winter wheat were taking early root,” one chapter begins. Intriguing? Perhaps. The train passed “mere villages, most of them - scatterings of clapboard houses, thin and white as a child’s paper cutouts - but they possessed a certain dignity and sense of purpose that made them pleasing to the eye of a passing traveler.” Still intrigued? Or getting a bit annoyed, wondering where this is going? “The hurried engine and its three cars barely slackened their pace; just enough for the crowd to admire its bunting draperies trimmed with boughs of evergreen…”
Ok, enough already, what is the point of this? A full seven paragraphs of this later, we find out that the train being described is the one carrying Abraham Lincoln to his inaugural. Why, it’s the very same journey that Ted Widmer floridly described in his own book!
I suppose some readers are drawn in by writing like this - and I will grant that Goodheart’s prose is not as hackneyed and groan-inducing as Widmer’s - but to me, it’s still a distracting and unnecessary focus on style over substance, where the professed cleverness of the prose is seemingly more important than the information it’s meant to impart. I began to find that I could skim or skip entire paragraphs at a time without missing a thing - which I did with increasing frequency as the book went on, in an effort to hasten its end.
If you can discern the actual substance of the story amid all of this purple prose, some of the individuals highlighted have compelling stories - the aforementioned Elmer Ellsworth, who became the first Union officer to die in the war, and Major Robert Anderson, who commanded Fort Sumter. Others, like Fremont and Garfield, don’t seem as necessary to the narrative. And as noted earlier, there’s very little perspective from the southern side - Goodheart spends a moment or two heaping scorn on Confederate leaders as a group, but makes little attempt to portray or understand the average Southerner's perspective, how they justified defending the South, and what cause they believed they were fighting for. It’s difficult to tell the story of an entire country, over the course of an entire year, kicking off an entire war, while focusing on only one side of the conflict.
In the end, it’s somewhat unclear what all of this is meant to convey and what Goodheart is trying to say, other than just providing us with a snapshot in time without making a larger point. If anything, it appears to be the story of a handful of individuals who found themselves on the precipice of a new era. But there are many other histories of Fort Sumter, other cultural histories of the time, other compilations of stories of how individuals experienced the era, that are better than this book, which tries to do all of those things at once, and then buries it all under the weight of its own overwritten prose.
And yet, just as with Widmer’s book, my opinion of this one seems to go against the grain of most other reviews here. So don’t take my word for it - if you like Widmer, and you liked the passages I quoted above, then go for it. As for me, I will learn to avoid history books that focus on a specific year, I’ll think twice before reading cultural histories of an era, and in order to avoid unpleasant surprises when deciding whether to read an unfamiliar author’s book - I’ll always read the acknowledgments first.
December 28, 2011
This is an amazing multi-layered book which introduces readers to a little-known cast of heroes. It is exceptionally well-written and presents a very original and evocative interpretation of the Civil War's beginnings. Highly recommended."
February 12, 2015
An insightful and informative history of the war’s first year, Goodheart’s story mostly revolves around people, and he does a great job telling these interesting stories without getting bogged down in minutiae fact-wise. Goodheart’s main purpose is to answer a single question: how a relatively peaceful nation transitioned into two parts willing to wage a violent people’s war against each other.
Goodheart’s basic time frame is the election of 1860 to the battle at Bull Run. All of the notable figures are covered such as James Buchanan (who both northerners and southerners denounced as a weakling and a traitor), Robert Anderson, Nathaniel Lyons, Benjamin Butler, and Elmer Ellsworth, among others. He does a great job showing how Lincoln evolved from the inheritor of a messy crisis to a shrewd and masterful statesman. Goodheart does a fine job focusing the year’s dramatic events around what was going on in these people’s heads. Goodheart’s writing is clear and concise. The narrative is smooth and Goodheart displays a dry, sardonic sense of humor laden with heavy irony.
As Goodheart reveals, the likelihood of the slavery issue being resolved peacefully was quite low since slavery was such an integral part of the South’s economy and culture. Lincoln estimated that the south’s slave population was worth two billion dollars, a figure most historians think is too low. The South’s slave population was worth more than all of America’s factories and railroads at the time. Thus, any form of compensated emancipation that moderates favored would consume an impractically huge amount of the federal budget for at least decades. The more new territory was opened to slavery, the greater the demand for slaves and the greater their value---which explains why southerners were so opposed to any limits to slavery’s expansion. The stake of southerners in the system was too valuable. Hence the argument of southerners that American freedom was dependent on American slavery. And up until this era, both major American political parties avoided a firm stance on the slavery issue.
An excellent book, although it is more about the “awakening” part than the actual start of the war. And annoyingly, Goodheart at one point inserts a firsthand account of his own research into the narrative. Still, a great history of a pivotal year.
Goodheart’s basic time frame is the election of 1860 to the battle at Bull Run. All of the notable figures are covered such as James Buchanan (who both northerners and southerners denounced as a weakling and a traitor), Robert Anderson, Nathaniel Lyons, Benjamin Butler, and Elmer Ellsworth, among others. He does a great job showing how Lincoln evolved from the inheritor of a messy crisis to a shrewd and masterful statesman. Goodheart does a fine job focusing the year’s dramatic events around what was going on in these people’s heads. Goodheart’s writing is clear and concise. The narrative is smooth and Goodheart displays a dry, sardonic sense of humor laden with heavy irony.
As Goodheart reveals, the likelihood of the slavery issue being resolved peacefully was quite low since slavery was such an integral part of the South’s economy and culture. Lincoln estimated that the south’s slave population was worth two billion dollars, a figure most historians think is too low. The South’s slave population was worth more than all of America’s factories and railroads at the time. Thus, any form of compensated emancipation that moderates favored would consume an impractically huge amount of the federal budget for at least decades. The more new territory was opened to slavery, the greater the demand for slaves and the greater their value---which explains why southerners were so opposed to any limits to slavery’s expansion. The stake of southerners in the system was too valuable. Hence the argument of southerners that American freedom was dependent on American slavery. And up until this era, both major American political parties avoided a firm stance on the slavery issue.
An excellent book, although it is more about the “awakening” part than the actual start of the war. And annoyingly, Goodheart at one point inserts a firsthand account of his own research into the narrative. Still, a great history of a pivotal year.
November 17, 2013
As a life-long student of American history, I know quite a bit about the period of the Civil War. But this book by Adam Goodheart about the opening months of the Civil War was simply fascinating. Goodheart examines the goals, aspirations, and hopes of the people involved in the Civil War in every section of the country. And he is able to bring 1861 to life by filling the book with accounts of the lives of people--both well-known and more obscure--who played a part in the beginning of the conflict. Goodheart's book serves as a reminder that history is not only composed of decisions and actions of political and military leaders but that it is also driven by the everyday decisions made by millions of citizens who are trying quietly to live their lives. People as different as James Garfield, Benjamin "Spoons" Butler, Abby Kelly Foster, Abner Doubleday, William Sherman, and Jessie Fremont fill the pages along with hundreds of others. This is a fascinating book that propels readers into the complexities that grippled the United States in the opening months of the Civil War and serves as a reminder that the "what ifs" in history can be as interesting and important as the events that eventually unfold.
August 8, 2017
I've always felt like I understood the Civil War, but in a distant, hazy kind of way - even after reading several books about it. So reading Adam Goodheart's book was a revelation. It was like taking a time machine back in time to 1861. He really helps you get a feel for what being an American during that crazy time period was like, and how Americans saw the issues that would push the country to war. More than that, it really makes the Civil War era clear in your mind - like you're watching it unfold for yourself.
It brought depth to several people/events I thought I knew about - Elmer Ellsworth, Fort Sumter, etc.
It also opened my eyes to stories that I can't believe I've never heard before - the Wide Awakes, how California and Missouri stayed Union, Lincoln's trip to Ohio, the "contrabands" at Fort Monroe.
Couldn't hardly put the book down. Can't wait to see what Goodheart puts out next.
It brought depth to several people/events I thought I knew about - Elmer Ellsworth, Fort Sumter, etc.
It also opened my eyes to stories that I can't believe I've never heard before - the Wide Awakes, how California and Missouri stayed Union, Lincoln's trip to Ohio, the "contrabands" at Fort Monroe.
Couldn't hardly put the book down. Can't wait to see what Goodheart puts out next.
April 29, 2011
One of the most remarkable thing that Goodheart does in this book is show you how hearts and minds changed over the course of a relatively short period of time. The simple view of the war doesn't show how many Northerners were racist and anti-abolitionist and how many Southerners didn't want secession. We see Northern soldiers meeting Southern slaves for the first time and hearing their stories. He shows us people "on the ground" making hard decisions and being changed by them (and changing others by them). The story of how escaped slaves became "contrabands" through the quick thinking of General Butler is fascinating--it caused a flood of black men, women and children into Union strongholds. Their hard work and information about Confederate troops in turn changed some minds about their capabilities and humanity.
June 15, 2012
This was not your average Civil War book. It rarely discussed any battles with the exception of Fort Sumter. The focus of the book is on the confluence of disparate people and events that contributed to the direction and the eventual outcome of the Civil War. The list of people will probably contain names of many that you know and probably a few you do not: Ralph Farnham, Jessie Fremont (John C. Fremont's wife), James Garfield, Abby Kelly Foster, Lucy Bagby, Elmer Ellsworth (and the Zouave's), Gen. Benjamin Butler (and the "Contraband" argument), Abner Doubleday, Thomas Starr King and many others. I look at the war differently now and believe it could have gone a different path had not these people among others help steer it with their actions.
May 1, 2023
4.5
You only need to read 70% of the book as the remaining is notes, bibliography, index, and acknowledgment etc.
Prior to this book I read Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer and Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. The former I found it hard to believe there were people helping murder of the president escape and the lunatics' target was more than the president of the US at the time. The latter was how president Lincoln formed a brilliant cabinet to bring victory to the Union side, but lack historical context for me, a person who did not know about the civil war more than it's a conflict of interests between the North and the South.
This book was a perfectly complement to both. It included the history prior to Lincoln's presidency, president Buchanan's no action to save the nation from division. Even after the war began, Lincoln was not as resolute and the public speculated him to be the same as his predecessor, just an Illinois lawyer. Everyone including Lincoln's advisors thought it would be good to abandon Fort Sumter and Pickens to the Confederates, but Lincoln's opinion was exactly the opposite - bring reinforcements. He's a resolute president.
The author was also able to paint a vivid picture of Elmer Ellsworth, died while trying to take down a confederate flag was considered a martyr to the Union's cause. The book started with the historical background from his birth all the way to his assassination. There was also details for his interactions with Lincoln and their subtle emotions towards each other. Ellsworth admired and supported Lincoln like a role figure while Lincoln strongly favored and quickly promoted him. Ellsworth and his men were activists and famous before his tragic death. Now it's not hard for me to understand why there were multiple attempts on president Lincoln and Secretary of State's lives.
Lincoln's response on determining the fate of the first three fugitive Negroes escaped from the Hampton was also very interesting. He's relinquishing the treatment of the fugitives to each commander rather than executing his power to force accepting the fugitives into the army. This later proved to be a wise one as the commanders all had their own opinions on this matter, which indicated differences among the Union force and forcing obedience could be contested and even led to possible betrayal. The acceptance of the first three fugitives were the best propaganda for the Union. After that the taste of freedom was just irresistible for the slaves in the South. The tide started turning.
I look forward to another read on the civil war post 1861.
You only need to read 70% of the book as the remaining is notes, bibliography, index, and acknowledgment etc.
Prior to this book I read Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer and Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. The former I found it hard to believe there were people helping murder of the president escape and the lunatics' target was more than the president of the US at the time. The latter was how president Lincoln formed a brilliant cabinet to bring victory to the Union side, but lack historical context for me, a person who did not know about the civil war more than it's a conflict of interests between the North and the South.
This book was a perfectly complement to both. It included the history prior to Lincoln's presidency, president Buchanan's no action to save the nation from division. Even after the war began, Lincoln was not as resolute and the public speculated him to be the same as his predecessor, just an Illinois lawyer. Everyone including Lincoln's advisors thought it would be good to abandon Fort Sumter and Pickens to the Confederates, but Lincoln's opinion was exactly the opposite - bring reinforcements. He's a resolute president.
The author was also able to paint a vivid picture of Elmer Ellsworth, died while trying to take down a confederate flag was considered a martyr to the Union's cause. The book started with the historical background from his birth all the way to his assassination. There was also details for his interactions with Lincoln and their subtle emotions towards each other. Ellsworth admired and supported Lincoln like a role figure while Lincoln strongly favored and quickly promoted him. Ellsworth and his men were activists and famous before his tragic death. Now it's not hard for me to understand why there were multiple attempts on president Lincoln and Secretary of State's lives.
Lincoln's response on determining the fate of the first three fugitive Negroes escaped from the Hampton was also very interesting. He's relinquishing the treatment of the fugitives to each commander rather than executing his power to force accepting the fugitives into the army. This later proved to be a wise one as the commanders all had their own opinions on this matter, which indicated differences among the Union force and forcing obedience could be contested and even led to possible betrayal. The acceptance of the first three fugitives were the best propaganda for the Union. After that the taste of freedom was just irresistible for the slaves in the South. The tide started turning.
I look forward to another read on the civil war post 1861.
May 9, 2019
This book is only about the events leading up to and beginning the Civil War in 1861. It was riveting to learn of what was happening across the country, and how some states erupted in mini Civil Wars to determine their allegiance. Abraham Lincoln entered the scene just a few days before the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter. He was untried politically and many felt he would not be able to lead the country through the crisis that was unfolding. I loved watching Lincoln grow into his role as Commander in Chief and prove even his most trusted advisors wrong about who he was.
Favorite quotes:
"For my own part, I consider the central idea pervading this struggle is the necessity that is upon us, of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
"If it be the business of the North to squander her millions, and to give up her sons, simply that we can place the old flag-staff again in the hands of those who ask protection of slavery, then...you will see an inglorious termination to the campaign. But, if we are to fight for freedom; if we are to wipe out the curse that infects our borders; if we are to establish, justice, teach mercy, and proclaim righteousness, then will our soldiers be animated by a heroic purpose that will build them up in courage, in faith, in honor, and they will come back to us respected and beloved." - Reverend J.D. Fulton
Favorite quotes:
"For my own part, I consider the central idea pervading this struggle is the necessity that is upon us, of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
"If it be the business of the North to squander her millions, and to give up her sons, simply that we can place the old flag-staff again in the hands of those who ask protection of slavery, then...you will see an inglorious termination to the campaign. But, if we are to fight for freedom; if we are to wipe out the curse that infects our borders; if we are to establish, justice, teach mercy, and proclaim righteousness, then will our soldiers be animated by a heroic purpose that will build them up in courage, in faith, in honor, and they will come back to us respected and beloved." - Reverend J.D. Fulton
May 31, 2012
One of the best books I have ever read about the causes and events leading to the bloodiest conflict on U.S. soil. I have long been interested in the Civil War, strange because my ancestors did not come to this country until 25 to 30 years after the war had ended.
This book addresses the first year, 1861, and the characters and events leading to the shelling of Fort Sumter and the first combat of the war between the states.
What is very clear is that this was both a war to end the peculiar institution of slavery, and to preserve the union created by the constitution of 1788.
One disturbing fact was that a proposal was considered by Congress to amend the constitution to make slavery a part of the constitution and to prohibit it ever being abolished!
The Southern secessionists declared it the war of Northern Agression, however the South began arming a year before the assault on Ft. Sumpter and fired the first salvo.
The North, very few of whom were abolutionists, called it the war of secession.
What struck me reading this book in our time of tea party, birthers, etc. was the rancorous rhetoric and unbridled hate that was spewed by both sides against their fellow citizens.
This tale identifies people not recognized today who were every bit as heroic and who contributed as much to the preservation of the union and emancipation of slaves as did Frederick Douglas, John Brown and Abraham Lincoln.
That said, it also addresses the intelligence, compassion and wisdom of Abraham Lincoln in his first 4 months as President and shows how his beliefs about the union and American democracy and its importance to the world were reflected in his speeches and decisions as the storm clouds of war were forming.
This book addresses the first year, 1861, and the characters and events leading to the shelling of Fort Sumter and the first combat of the war between the states.
What is very clear is that this was both a war to end the peculiar institution of slavery, and to preserve the union created by the constitution of 1788.
One disturbing fact was that a proposal was considered by Congress to amend the constitution to make slavery a part of the constitution and to prohibit it ever being abolished!
The Southern secessionists declared it the war of Northern Agression, however the South began arming a year before the assault on Ft. Sumpter and fired the first salvo.
The North, very few of whom were abolutionists, called it the war of secession.
What struck me reading this book in our time of tea party, birthers, etc. was the rancorous rhetoric and unbridled hate that was spewed by both sides against their fellow citizens.
This tale identifies people not recognized today who were every bit as heroic and who contributed as much to the preservation of the union and emancipation of slaves as did Frederick Douglas, John Brown and Abraham Lincoln.
That said, it also addresses the intelligence, compassion and wisdom of Abraham Lincoln in his first 4 months as President and shows how his beliefs about the union and American democracy and its importance to the world were reflected in his speeches and decisions as the storm clouds of war were forming.
January 25, 2013
have you ever read an outdated edition of "us weekly"? that is kind of what this book was like. i listened to it at work over a couple of days and at least three times wanted to just shut it off. but listening to books is so passive i let it ride.
the fault is all mine on this one. i figured that i would be reading a history if the civil war from the awakening...not just about events in 1861, and before but also 1989, the 1930's and 1963. i should have been more diligent.
it felt like, a number of times, we were building up to a crescendo but never actually reaching it. i kept listening waiting to hear names that i would recognize and kind of go "aha, this was the the root cause for (some big event that we all recall)".
i think this book would have been easier to "read" or at least be interested in if it were more like a detailed timeline. start in january 1861 and just go one from there in chronological order. we got plenty of backstory to the things that occurred in 1861 and a fair amount of story to the things that transpired in 1861. we also got recollections from people who lived in 1861 from well after the war but pretty much nothing about the war itself. ah, whatever.
the fault is all mine on this one. i figured that i would be reading a history if the civil war from the awakening...not just about events in 1861, and before but also 1989, the 1930's and 1963. i should have been more diligent.
it felt like, a number of times, we were building up to a crescendo but never actually reaching it. i kept listening waiting to hear names that i would recognize and kind of go "aha, this was the the root cause for (some big event that we all recall)".
i think this book would have been easier to "read" or at least be interested in if it were more like a detailed timeline. start in january 1861 and just go one from there in chronological order. we got plenty of backstory to the things that occurred in 1861 and a fair amount of story to the things that transpired in 1861. we also got recollections from people who lived in 1861 from well after the war but pretty much nothing about the war itself. ah, whatever.
June 26, 2011
I learned a lot of new stuff about the foundation for the Civil War from this book, which basically takes part of 1860 and part of 1861 and digs into events and people that are not normally front and center in this history, along with the usual stuff. Great insights into the country's feelings about slavery at the time, both in the North and the South. And if anyone continues to insist this war was NOT about slavery, hopefully reading this book will finally disabuse them of that belief, given that slavery drove not only the economy in the south but in the north as well.
It was interesting to follow the North's movement toward a collective belief that slavery is truly wrong, and how certain people/events in 1861 were pivotal in that movement. I never knew about Benjamin Butler until I read this book. His lawyerly decision regarding three slaves who escaped to Fort Monroe at the beginning of the war was truly a catalyst for much of the transformation.
It was interesting to follow the North's movement toward a collective belief that slavery is truly wrong, and how certain people/events in 1861 were pivotal in that movement. I never knew about Benjamin Butler until I read this book. His lawyerly decision regarding three slaves who escaped to Fort Monroe at the beginning of the war was truly a catalyst for much of the transformation.
April 1, 2012
1861 is a book about the Civil War, but it's unusual in that it is written through the lens of 1861 itself. It uses contemporary sources to paint a detailed and nuanced snapshot of the United States in the few months before and after the start of the war. There are no sweeping historical judgments here, or consultations of modern scholarship that color most depictions of the Civil War as we view it now, 150 years on. It puts you right in the year 1861 and helps you see how the war unfolded in the most realistic sense, since the people writing and speaking at that time did not know how it would end (or even begin).
You could say the scope of the book is very narrow, centering as it does on only about six months of history. But the foundation it lays for that time period helped me understand so much about the rest of the Civil War. I've never read a history book quite like this one and I must say that I really enjoyed the author's interesting approach to the subject!
You could say the scope of the book is very narrow, centering as it does on only about six months of history. But the foundation it lays for that time period helped me understand so much about the rest of the Civil War. I've never read a history book quite like this one and I must say that I really enjoyed the author's interesting approach to the subject!
April 30, 2014
Fantastic! This was a beautiful read. It was such a pleasure that now that I'm done I almost want to pick it up and read it again. I loved the writing, I loved the subject matter and I loved that the author caused me to re-think preconceived notions and taught me knew things- or helped me see them from a new angle. Highly recommended to all lovers of history.
June 12, 2012
A very good book of the year. It is a bit different in it's approach. It is like grandfather sitting down and telling you about the year of 1861. A very informal style that took me quite a long time to get use too.
January 1, 2014
This is a wonderful book that paints a vivid picture of America during the Secession Crisis and the early days of the Civil War. But beyond mere narrative, "1861"'s main focus is its chronicling of the psychological shift among Northerners that made the Civil War possible. Until the mid-1800s, the North had seen compromise on the issue of slavery as the greatest virtue, with the goal of keeping the South in the Union trumping all other concerns. Even though most northerners reviled slavery and slaveholders, they hated abolitionists even more because they saw them as dangerous radicals who were hell-bent on tearing the nation apart all for the sake of the slaves. Goodheart chronicles how and why Northerners came to reject compromise in favor of quashing secessionism at all costs, including war. He does this by focusing not so much on well-known or politically important individuals like Lincoln, but on lesser-known people like future president James Garfield (whose extensive diaries reveal the evolution of his thoughts) and also now-forgotten people like Elmer Ellsworth (the founder of the New York Fire Zouaves regiment that would be blamed for the disaster at Bull Run). He also chronicles popular movements of the day like the Wide Awakes, a Republican paramilitary group that sprang up overnight and became a national craze. Training in secret, the St. Louis Wide Awakes (composed mostly of immigrant Germans) became so formidable that a wily Missouri politician and a maverick (and possibly psychotic) Union army officer were able to turn them into a fighting force that scored the first significant Union victory of the war (and probably saved Missouri for the Union). Fascinating chronicles of many more little-known early-war events and a very entertaining (though sometimes a bit too florid and digressive) writing style make "1861" a fine addition to any Civil War library.
December 30, 2012
A beautifully written book about...1861, as seen through the eyes of contemporaries. Read it for the story of the German immigrants, among whom were scores of liberal and radical refugees from the failed revolutions of 1848, who saved Missouri for the Union. Read it for the story of Jesse Fremont. Read it, to know the slaves who forced the hand of Gen. Butler and set abolition in motion. Mostly, read it because there are too many books and documentaries (looking at you, Ken Burns' Civil War) that bemoan the Civil War as tragedy and treat the year 1861 as a warning about what can befall our country when compromise fails. This isn't that sort of book. It lays bare the many moral imperfections of the Northern cause without losing sight of who was in the right and who was grievously, maliciously wrong.
March 25, 2017
Not what I expected. Fresh, different! If you're not really a hardcore dates, names, and battle maps history person, and you want to read about the civil war, this wouldn't be a bad one to pick up. The author leads off by explaining that this is a book about how people reacted and dealt with the unprecedented early months of the war. These are personal stories and they run the gamut of class and social standing but they do not run south of the mason Dixon often. Most stories are of union heroes, and the author has zero sentimentality toward or understanding for the people of the south, but if you're cool with that you'll probably like it.
April 6, 2015
Absolutely riveting work of history. Paints on a big and broad canvas, giving readers a real sense of this incredible moment in history. A particularly good book for those (like me) who have difficulty with more traditional military histories that focus heavily on the battlefield and want instead to understand how we ended up there.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 485 reviews