What do you think?
Rate this book
April 1865: The Month That Saved America
One month in 1865 witnessed the frenzied fall of Richmond, a daring last-ditch Southern plan for guerrilla warfare, Lee's harrowing retreat, and then, Appomattox. It saw Lincoln's assassination just five days later and a near-successful plot to decapitate the Union government, followed by chaos and coup fears in the North, collapsed negotiations and continued bloodshed in the South, and finally, the start of national reconciliation.
In the end, April 1865 emerged as not just the tale of the war's denouement, but the story of the making of our nation.
Jay Winik offers a brilliant new look at the Civil War's final days that will forever change the way we see the war's end and the nation's new beginning. Uniquely set within the larger sweep of history and filled with rich profiles of outsize figures, fresh iconoclastic scholarship, and a gripping narrative, this is a masterful account of the thirty most pivotal days in the life of the United States.
In the end, April 1865 emerged as not just the tale of the war's denouement, but the story of the making of our nation.
Jay Winik offers a brilliant new look at the Civil War's final days that will forever change the way we see the war's end and the nation's new beginning. Uniquely set within the larger sweep of history and filled with rich profiles of outsize figures, fresh iconoclastic scholarship, and a gripping narrative, this is a masterful account of the thirty most pivotal days in the life of the United States.
512 pages, Paperback
First published March 20, 2001
About the author
Jay Winik
10 books106 followersA New York Times best-selling author and American historian. He had a brief career in the U.S. government's foreign policy, involving civil wars around the globe, from the former Yugoslavia to El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Cambodia, including helping to create the United Nations plan to end Cambodia's civil war. In 1991, he took up writing history full-time.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 514 reviews
April 3, 2023
April of 1865 was a pivotal month in American history. After four years of bloody civil war, the Union cause was on the verge of victory, and a Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery had been passed by the United States Congress. But no one at that time could be sure that the guns of civil war would truly and permanently fall silent. That the American Civil War ended as completely as it did, without a Civil War II or Civil War III breaking out in this country, is no doubt why Jay Winik has given this study of April 1865 the subtitle The Month That Saved America.
Author Jay Winik has his own reasons for being interested in how the last month of the American Civil War progressed. As a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer, and as an adviser to Les Aspin (Secretary of Defense during the Clinton Administration), Winik writes that “I had the chance to witness up close a number of civil wars around the globe: Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, Nicaragua, El Salvador.” Looking at how intractable and long-lasting so many civil wars have been, Winik was interested in learning “how a young and still embryonic America avoided the terrible and tragic fate that has beset so many other countries wracked by civil conflict” (pp. xvii-xviii).
From the beginning, Winik places the reader in an America that is undergoing rapid change under the stresses of war. President Abraham Lincoln, re-elected the year before, had started his second term in March of 1865 with an inaugural address that spoke of the restored Union moving forward "With malice toward none, with charity for all" -- signalling to the crumbling Confederacy, and to the world, that in contrast with the pattern that had obtained in most civil wars, there would be no reprisals against the former adherents of the defeated side. There would be no mass imprisonments, no mass executions. With those noble, forbearant words, Abraham Lincoln, with just six weeks left to live, did much to ensure that in the United States of America, civil war would be a term couched in the singular rather than the plural.
As the actual month of April 1865 began, Union General Ulysses S. Grant had the strategically vital city of Petersburg and the nearby Confederate capital at Richmond under siege. With the rebel defense lines around Richmond and Petersburg breaking, Winik shows a comparable break in the famously aristocratic reserve of Confederate General Robert E. Lee at the time when Lee and his staff were establishing the plans for retreating westward from Richmond, in hopes of linking up with General Joseph E. Johnston's forces in North Carolina.
The one stumbling block seemed to be the Confederate government in Richmond. Late that afternoon, Lee received [Confederate president Jefferson] Davis’s brooding reply, saying that ‘to move tonight will involve the loss of many valuables, both for want of time to pack and of transportation.’ Reading this, the general’s much-vaunted discipline cracked. He abruptly tore the paper to shreds, saying hotly that he was sure he had given Davis ‘sufficient notice,’ and sent a testy response to Richmond: ‘Your telegram received. I think it is absolutely necessary that we would abandon our position tonight.’” (pp. 101-02).
Yet the fall of Richmond could have been only the beginning of a new, and newly horrible, phase of civil war, rather than its end. Jefferson Davis wanted the Confederacy to disperse its armies and take up a guerrilla war. It is dreadful to think what that might have involved: hit-and-run terrorist attacks by rebel insurgents who would then hide among Southern civilians; increasingly severe retribution by Union authorities, motivating more Southerners to join the insurgents; an escalating and endless cycle of violence. As Winik puts it, “[M]ore frightening to the Union than the actual casualties it might suffer would be the psychological toll as prolonged occupiers, the profound exhaustion, the constant demoralization….There would be no real rest, no real respite, no true amity, nor for that matter, any real sense of victory – only an amorphous state of neither war nor peace, raging like a low-level fever” (p. 153).
Lee, to his credit, rejected this horrifying and destructive proposal by Davis; he believed that the issue had been tried by combat, and settled in accordance with the will of God. It is against that background that Lee’s April 9 surrender to Grant at Appomattox Court House – an event at which both commanders behaved with noteworthy dignity and moderation – takes on its full significance.
To call the surrender at Appomattox "dramatic" would not be adequate. Lee is in his best full-dress grey uniform; indeed, he has been saving it for just this occasion. Grant, by contrast, is in a mud-spattered blue uniform, with a general officer's shoulder stars hastily sewn on. They make some small talk regarding their shared service in the Mexican-American War. Lee has to remind Grant of the purpose of their meeting, and Grant writes down the surrender terms, under which the ex-Confederate soldiers will be paroled to return home in peace. When Lee reads the surrender terms, his "expression brightened. Now the terms were fixed in writing, and they were as generous as could be expected. His men would not be penned as prisoners of war; they would not be paraded ignominiously through Northern streets; and, most importantly, they would not be prosecuted for treason" (pp. 187-88).
And Grant's generosity in victory extended even further. Informed by Lee that a number of Confederate cavalry and artillery troops owned their own horses, Grant stipulated that any rebel who claimed to own a horse could take it home for spring planting. Grant sent 25,000 rations across the lines to feed the starving rebels. And the officers of the two warring sides courteously doffed their hats to each other as the negotiations concluded.
If April 1865 was indeed "the month that saved America," much of that has to do with the behavior of Grant and Lee at Appomattox Court House. Winik, with his experience studying the civil wars that have continued for decades and centuries, captures well the significance of this moment:
Appomattox was not preordained. There were no established rules or well-worn script. If anything, retribution had been the larger and longer precedent. So, if these moments teemed with hope -- and they did -- it was largely due to two men, who rose to the occasion, to Grant's and Lee's respective actions; one general, magnanimous in victory, the other, gracious and equally dignified in defeat, the two of them, for their own reasons and in their own ways, fervently interested in beginning the process to bind up the wounds of the last four years. And yes, if, paradoxically, these were among Lee's finest hours, and they were, so, too, were they Grant's greatest moments. (pp. 193-94)
With the news of Lee’s surrender, the city of Washington, D.C., capital of the long-embattled Union, came alive with joy. And yet President Abraham Lincoln, as described in the present tense by Winik, “seems strangely immune to the intoxicating glow of impending military victory” (p. 204). While certainly pleased by the news of the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, Lincoln “hasn’t been sleeping well, troubled by insomnia and haunted by bizarre and ghoulish dreams. He is afflicted with fierce headaches. He is thirty pounds underweight” (p. 204). And one of those bizarre nightmares, as he described it to his wife, First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln – of finding a corpse, guarded, in the East Room of the White House, and being told that the corpse is that of “The President…killed by an assassin!” (p. 205) – proved to be all too tragically prophetic.
Lincoln, of course, knew of the danger of assassination, long before the fatal night of April 14, 1865. “As to crazy folks, I must take my chances….I long ago made up my mind that if anybody wants to kill me, he will do it….There are a thousand ways of getting at a man if it is desired that he should be killed.” Lincoln rejected the idea of a four-man bodyguard, a military escort, saying that “It is important that the people know I come among them without fear” (p. 251). In the courageous way he willingly exposed himself to danger, as a practical expression of his belief that the U.S.A. must have a government whose leaders are available to their people, Lincoln demonstrated once again his abiding faith in democracy.
Another road that was fortunately not taken related to the immediate aftermath of the tragedy of President Lincoln's assassination at Ford's Theatre in Washington on April 14. By the morning after, as news of the President's death spread throughout Washington,
a strange light began to fall and grow upon the Union: vengeance and sorrow and chaos threatened not the South, but the North....Now it was the voices of revenge that could be heard loudest. Citizens poured into the streets, in the downpour, and soon they were nothing more than muttering mobs, a hostile throng angrily congregating from K Street to Lafayette Square....Talk of streets running red with Confederate blood was everywhere. And with the iron hand of martial law imposed upon the Union capital, the city remained edged with fear. (p. 260)
Yet once again, the better angels of the American nature prevailed. The assassination conspirators were tracked down, put on trial, and punished for their crimes, but there was no mob violence in American streets against real or perceived rebels. Rather, the people of the restored Union generally carried themselves in accordance with the spirit of Lincoln -- "With malice toward none, with charity for all."
It was against the background of the assassination of President Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre that Union General William T. Sherman and Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston negotiated the largest single surrender of Confederate troops at Durham Station, North Carolina. Johnston had already received Davis’s orders to fight on: “what Lee had peremptorily rejected at Appomattox, Davis was now ordering Johnston to make come to pass: a guerrilla campaign” (p. 299).
Yet Johnston and his fellow rebel officers did not take the bait that Davis had offered. They followed Lee’s lead and surrendered, and the work of seeking reconciliation began. While acknowledging the existence of much enduring bitterness among defeated Southerners, and the fact that the problems of racism that had led to civil war remained unsolved, Winik concludes by writing that with the events of April 1865, “the nation collectively strode into a new era. It continues still” (p. 388).
Winik's approach to history is relatively traditional, focusing largely on famous men making crucial decisions. If your preference is for what is often called "the new social history," or for work like that of Howard Zinn, it may not be for you. But Winik does pay notice to the fact that it wasn't just the decisions of Lincoln and Grant and Lee that mattered. Millions of ordinary people had to decide, independently, that they wanted peace rather than war. Fortunately for the future of this nation, millions of ordinary people made exactly that decision.
And April 1865: The Month That Saved America has made its way into a number of conversations. For instance, it is well-known as the book that then-President George W. Bush was reading at the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks – another singularly difficult time of violence and mass death, when many wondered how the nation would survive and move forward. Winik’s book provides a powerful look back at a time when the U.S.A. managed to do just that.
Author Jay Winik has his own reasons for being interested in how the last month of the American Civil War progressed. As a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer, and as an adviser to Les Aspin (Secretary of Defense during the Clinton Administration), Winik writes that “I had the chance to witness up close a number of civil wars around the globe: Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, Nicaragua, El Salvador.” Looking at how intractable and long-lasting so many civil wars have been, Winik was interested in learning “how a young and still embryonic America avoided the terrible and tragic fate that has beset so many other countries wracked by civil conflict” (pp. xvii-xviii).
From the beginning, Winik places the reader in an America that is undergoing rapid change under the stresses of war. President Abraham Lincoln, re-elected the year before, had started his second term in March of 1865 with an inaugural address that spoke of the restored Union moving forward "With malice toward none, with charity for all" -- signalling to the crumbling Confederacy, and to the world, that in contrast with the pattern that had obtained in most civil wars, there would be no reprisals against the former adherents of the defeated side. There would be no mass imprisonments, no mass executions. With those noble, forbearant words, Abraham Lincoln, with just six weeks left to live, did much to ensure that in the United States of America, civil war would be a term couched in the singular rather than the plural.
As the actual month of April 1865 began, Union General Ulysses S. Grant had the strategically vital city of Petersburg and the nearby Confederate capital at Richmond under siege. With the rebel defense lines around Richmond and Petersburg breaking, Winik shows a comparable break in the famously aristocratic reserve of Confederate General Robert E. Lee at the time when Lee and his staff were establishing the plans for retreating westward from Richmond, in hopes of linking up with General Joseph E. Johnston's forces in North Carolina.
The one stumbling block seemed to be the Confederate government in Richmond. Late that afternoon, Lee received [Confederate president Jefferson] Davis’s brooding reply, saying that ‘to move tonight will involve the loss of many valuables, both for want of time to pack and of transportation.’ Reading this, the general’s much-vaunted discipline cracked. He abruptly tore the paper to shreds, saying hotly that he was sure he had given Davis ‘sufficient notice,’ and sent a testy response to Richmond: ‘Your telegram received. I think it is absolutely necessary that we would abandon our position tonight.’” (pp. 101-02).
Yet the fall of Richmond could have been only the beginning of a new, and newly horrible, phase of civil war, rather than its end. Jefferson Davis wanted the Confederacy to disperse its armies and take up a guerrilla war. It is dreadful to think what that might have involved: hit-and-run terrorist attacks by rebel insurgents who would then hide among Southern civilians; increasingly severe retribution by Union authorities, motivating more Southerners to join the insurgents; an escalating and endless cycle of violence. As Winik puts it, “[M]ore frightening to the Union than the actual casualties it might suffer would be the psychological toll as prolonged occupiers, the profound exhaustion, the constant demoralization….There would be no real rest, no real respite, no true amity, nor for that matter, any real sense of victory – only an amorphous state of neither war nor peace, raging like a low-level fever” (p. 153).
Lee, to his credit, rejected this horrifying and destructive proposal by Davis; he believed that the issue had been tried by combat, and settled in accordance with the will of God. It is against that background that Lee’s April 9 surrender to Grant at Appomattox Court House – an event at which both commanders behaved with noteworthy dignity and moderation – takes on its full significance.
To call the surrender at Appomattox "dramatic" would not be adequate. Lee is in his best full-dress grey uniform; indeed, he has been saving it for just this occasion. Grant, by contrast, is in a mud-spattered blue uniform, with a general officer's shoulder stars hastily sewn on. They make some small talk regarding their shared service in the Mexican-American War. Lee has to remind Grant of the purpose of their meeting, and Grant writes down the surrender terms, under which the ex-Confederate soldiers will be paroled to return home in peace. When Lee reads the surrender terms, his "expression brightened. Now the terms were fixed in writing, and they were as generous as could be expected. His men would not be penned as prisoners of war; they would not be paraded ignominiously through Northern streets; and, most importantly, they would not be prosecuted for treason" (pp. 187-88).
And Grant's generosity in victory extended even further. Informed by Lee that a number of Confederate cavalry and artillery troops owned their own horses, Grant stipulated that any rebel who claimed to own a horse could take it home for spring planting. Grant sent 25,000 rations across the lines to feed the starving rebels. And the officers of the two warring sides courteously doffed their hats to each other as the negotiations concluded.
If April 1865 was indeed "the month that saved America," much of that has to do with the behavior of Grant and Lee at Appomattox Court House. Winik, with his experience studying the civil wars that have continued for decades and centuries, captures well the significance of this moment:
Appomattox was not preordained. There were no established rules or well-worn script. If anything, retribution had been the larger and longer precedent. So, if these moments teemed with hope -- and they did -- it was largely due to two men, who rose to the occasion, to Grant's and Lee's respective actions; one general, magnanimous in victory, the other, gracious and equally dignified in defeat, the two of them, for their own reasons and in their own ways, fervently interested in beginning the process to bind up the wounds of the last four years. And yes, if, paradoxically, these were among Lee's finest hours, and they were, so, too, were they Grant's greatest moments. (pp. 193-94)
With the news of Lee’s surrender, the city of Washington, D.C., capital of the long-embattled Union, came alive with joy. And yet President Abraham Lincoln, as described in the present tense by Winik, “seems strangely immune to the intoxicating glow of impending military victory” (p. 204). While certainly pleased by the news of the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, Lincoln “hasn’t been sleeping well, troubled by insomnia and haunted by bizarre and ghoulish dreams. He is afflicted with fierce headaches. He is thirty pounds underweight” (p. 204). And one of those bizarre nightmares, as he described it to his wife, First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln – of finding a corpse, guarded, in the East Room of the White House, and being told that the corpse is that of “The President…killed by an assassin!” (p. 205) – proved to be all too tragically prophetic.
Lincoln, of course, knew of the danger of assassination, long before the fatal night of April 14, 1865. “As to crazy folks, I must take my chances….I long ago made up my mind that if anybody wants to kill me, he will do it….There are a thousand ways of getting at a man if it is desired that he should be killed.” Lincoln rejected the idea of a four-man bodyguard, a military escort, saying that “It is important that the people know I come among them without fear” (p. 251). In the courageous way he willingly exposed himself to danger, as a practical expression of his belief that the U.S.A. must have a government whose leaders are available to their people, Lincoln demonstrated once again his abiding faith in democracy.
Another road that was fortunately not taken related to the immediate aftermath of the tragedy of President Lincoln's assassination at Ford's Theatre in Washington on April 14. By the morning after, as news of the President's death spread throughout Washington,
a strange light began to fall and grow upon the Union: vengeance and sorrow and chaos threatened not the South, but the North....Now it was the voices of revenge that could be heard loudest. Citizens poured into the streets, in the downpour, and soon they were nothing more than muttering mobs, a hostile throng angrily congregating from K Street to Lafayette Square....Talk of streets running red with Confederate blood was everywhere. And with the iron hand of martial law imposed upon the Union capital, the city remained edged with fear. (p. 260)
Yet once again, the better angels of the American nature prevailed. The assassination conspirators were tracked down, put on trial, and punished for their crimes, but there was no mob violence in American streets against real or perceived rebels. Rather, the people of the restored Union generally carried themselves in accordance with the spirit of Lincoln -- "With malice toward none, with charity for all."
It was against the background of the assassination of President Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre that Union General William T. Sherman and Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston negotiated the largest single surrender of Confederate troops at Durham Station, North Carolina. Johnston had already received Davis’s orders to fight on: “what Lee had peremptorily rejected at Appomattox, Davis was now ordering Johnston to make come to pass: a guerrilla campaign” (p. 299).
Yet Johnston and his fellow rebel officers did not take the bait that Davis had offered. They followed Lee’s lead and surrendered, and the work of seeking reconciliation began. While acknowledging the existence of much enduring bitterness among defeated Southerners, and the fact that the problems of racism that had led to civil war remained unsolved, Winik concludes by writing that with the events of April 1865, “the nation collectively strode into a new era. It continues still” (p. 388).
Winik's approach to history is relatively traditional, focusing largely on famous men making crucial decisions. If your preference is for what is often called "the new social history," or for work like that of Howard Zinn, it may not be for you. But Winik does pay notice to the fact that it wasn't just the decisions of Lincoln and Grant and Lee that mattered. Millions of ordinary people had to decide, independently, that they wanted peace rather than war. Fortunately for the future of this nation, millions of ordinary people made exactly that decision.
And April 1865: The Month That Saved America has made its way into a number of conversations. For instance, it is well-known as the book that then-President George W. Bush was reading at the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks – another singularly difficult time of violence and mass death, when many wondered how the nation would survive and move forward. Winik’s book provides a powerful look back at a time when the U.S.A. managed to do just that.
December 5, 2008
This book had its moments, but more than a few times I felt like puttiing it aside. I had some strong reservations, which I detail below.
Jay Winik's book is an account of the final month of the Civil War and the significance of those events in US history, particularly regarding ideas of national identity. Winik contends that the United Sates, at its founding, was something of an artificial creation. It was not a nation in the European sense, one that developed organically, based in a common ethnicity and culture. Instead, it was based on a set of ideas, which were open to interpretation and argument. Basically, Winik sees the period covered in his book as a watershed, in which the very fate of the Republic was decided. More particularly, he contends that events of that time created a united nation.
He opens his book with an examination of the theoretical meaning of America, as propounded by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and his idealization of the yeoman farmer. The major flaw in Jefferson's "Empire of Liberty" was slavery. The irony was that Jefferson was a slaveholder who also abhored the institution of slavery. Indeed, Jefferson saw it as a real danger, perhaps the main danger, to the development of American society.
As Shelby Foote has pointed out, the Civil War was not about state's rights, as such, rather it was about one right in partictular: slavery. There had been secessionist agitation prior to the Confederacy. Southern secession was the most serious version, but New England, the Pacific coast states, the Old Northwest had all argued for separation at one time or another. As Foote has argued, however, all of the inter-regional conflicts that fell within the rubric of state's rights were resolved in compromise. Slavery was the one issue that the country could not resolve. It permeated and poisoned everything else, making true national unity impossible.
In his narrative, Winik focuses on several major historical actors: the opposing presidents Lincoln and Davis, as well as the generals Grant, Lee, Sherman, and Johnston. Abraham Lincoln's desire to rebuild the nation, and not to punish the South, is the emphasis of Winik's narrative. Preservation of the Union was Lincoln's primary concern; however, as the war went on, he came to believe that Jeffersonian ideals of liberty and equality were the only reliable bases for continued nationhood. The logic of this position meant that slavery had to be abolished.
As the Civil War entered its fourth year, the fear of many in the North was that Southern forces, unable to defeat Northern armies in the field, would shift to guerrilla warfare. Winik uses the example of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest to illustrate potential Southern capabilities in that endeavor. Rather than restoring the Union, the United States would be compelled to impose martial law on Southern states indefinitely and wage a long, bitter anti-guerrilla war. Indeed, this was Jefferson Davis's hope for perserving some sort of Confederate independence.
The author details how Grant and Sherman sought to carry out the wishes of their commander-in-chief by giving generous terms to their adversaries, in exchange for surrender. Robert E. Lee's attitude was crucial in this process. Uniquely, among Confederate leaders, he had the moral authority to convince his compatriots to give up the fight and to absolve them of guilt and shame for their surrender. His example led even firebrand Nathan Bedford Forrest to follow suit. In an impressive life, Lee's actions at war's end were his most noble.
Winik's book has some weaknesses in style and historical analysis. In terms of style, he has tendency to overuse metaphors and similes, stringing one after another, a legion of metaphors, marching across the page, an Army of the Potomoc, a veritable column of marching symbolisms, like Hannibal's advance through the Alps of historical narrative...(You get the idea.) He also likes to string lists of analogous names or events together, for example, comparing a Civil War general's leadership to a list of past commanders, without doing anything more than name dropping. I found this annoying and skipped over it.
For the most part, Winik's book is readable and his conclusions are sound, although not especially original. (Most of this can be found in the works of other historians.) My main problem was the way Winik skewed evidence to fit his central argument, especially with the way he handled the issue of slavery.
First, let me state that Winik is not offering a justification for the slave system. He joins many other historians in showing that slavery was a political, social, and moral issue so intractible that the framers of the Constitution were forced to make strained, untenable compromises to balance the interests of pro- and anti-slave positions. Slavery was tied up in rights of states to order their internal affairs and in rights of property. It was such a pernicious problem that it took the upheaval of war to create a situation in which it could be dealt with effectively.
Where Winik goes wrong, I think, is that he mainly deals with slaveholding as a theoretical abstraction. When he deals with the on-the-ground reality of slavery, he seems to soften the image of it. Throughout the book, he persists in using the old Southern term servants instead of slaves. Calling them "servants" was a way Southerners rationalized and denied the true nature of their social system.
Winik also makes much of the movement in the South, that emerged during the war, to offer slaves emancipation in exchange for military service. While he mentions the widespread Southern opposition to this idea, most of his cited quotes are from people who prioritized Confederate independence over a continuation of the slave system. The emphasis is on Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, who argued in favor of raising black troops, rather than those against.
Lastly, Winik portrays the relations between slaveholders and slaves in an unbalanced way. He makes much of the paternally benevolent attitude held by some slaveowners. Jefferson Davis, for example, treated his slaves with respect, refrained from physical punishment, and maintained a higher than normal quality of life for his slaves. Winik makes much of this, as well as the devotion many slaves had for their masters. While he mentions that these attitudes and practices were exceptional, he never presents the inhumanity of slavery with any detail.
As I stated earlier, Winik is not trying to give the slaveholding South a pass. Unlike Southern apologists, he does not argue that slavery was tangential and that the war was really about states rights. Winik has mainly done what a lot of writers do; that is, he has squeezed and subverted his facts to better fit his main theme: that the events of the war crystalized in such a way that the two sections emerged as a unified country. As such, he wants to emphasize points of agreement, rather than continued division. As such, he downplays the violence perpetrated by white Southerners during the postwar period and after, as well as the majority Southern opinion that supported it.
Still, Winik's book is a decent, accessible account of an important point in US history, packed with a lot of interesting information. His contribution is to remind us that events were not inevitable even if, in hindsight, we view the South as all but defeated in April, 1865. Winik shows how events were not destined to occur as they did, but were brought about as the result of choices made in the context of a confusing, complicated situation.
Jay Winik's book is an account of the final month of the Civil War and the significance of those events in US history, particularly regarding ideas of national identity. Winik contends that the United Sates, at its founding, was something of an artificial creation. It was not a nation in the European sense, one that developed organically, based in a common ethnicity and culture. Instead, it was based on a set of ideas, which were open to interpretation and argument. Basically, Winik sees the period covered in his book as a watershed, in which the very fate of the Republic was decided. More particularly, he contends that events of that time created a united nation.
He opens his book with an examination of the theoretical meaning of America, as propounded by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and his idealization of the yeoman farmer. The major flaw in Jefferson's "Empire of Liberty" was slavery. The irony was that Jefferson was a slaveholder who also abhored the institution of slavery. Indeed, Jefferson saw it as a real danger, perhaps the main danger, to the development of American society.
As Shelby Foote has pointed out, the Civil War was not about state's rights, as such, rather it was about one right in partictular: slavery. There had been secessionist agitation prior to the Confederacy. Southern secession was the most serious version, but New England, the Pacific coast states, the Old Northwest had all argued for separation at one time or another. As Foote has argued, however, all of the inter-regional conflicts that fell within the rubric of state's rights were resolved in compromise. Slavery was the one issue that the country could not resolve. It permeated and poisoned everything else, making true national unity impossible.
In his narrative, Winik focuses on several major historical actors: the opposing presidents Lincoln and Davis, as well as the generals Grant, Lee, Sherman, and Johnston. Abraham Lincoln's desire to rebuild the nation, and not to punish the South, is the emphasis of Winik's narrative. Preservation of the Union was Lincoln's primary concern; however, as the war went on, he came to believe that Jeffersonian ideals of liberty and equality were the only reliable bases for continued nationhood. The logic of this position meant that slavery had to be abolished.
As the Civil War entered its fourth year, the fear of many in the North was that Southern forces, unable to defeat Northern armies in the field, would shift to guerrilla warfare. Winik uses the example of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest to illustrate potential Southern capabilities in that endeavor. Rather than restoring the Union, the United States would be compelled to impose martial law on Southern states indefinitely and wage a long, bitter anti-guerrilla war. Indeed, this was Jefferson Davis's hope for perserving some sort of Confederate independence.
The author details how Grant and Sherman sought to carry out the wishes of their commander-in-chief by giving generous terms to their adversaries, in exchange for surrender. Robert E. Lee's attitude was crucial in this process. Uniquely, among Confederate leaders, he had the moral authority to convince his compatriots to give up the fight and to absolve them of guilt and shame for their surrender. His example led even firebrand Nathan Bedford Forrest to follow suit. In an impressive life, Lee's actions at war's end were his most noble.
Winik's book has some weaknesses in style and historical analysis. In terms of style, he has tendency to overuse metaphors and similes, stringing one after another, a legion of metaphors, marching across the page, an Army of the Potomoc, a veritable column of marching symbolisms, like Hannibal's advance through the Alps of historical narrative...(You get the idea.) He also likes to string lists of analogous names or events together, for example, comparing a Civil War general's leadership to a list of past commanders, without doing anything more than name dropping. I found this annoying and skipped over it.
For the most part, Winik's book is readable and his conclusions are sound, although not especially original. (Most of this can be found in the works of other historians.) My main problem was the way Winik skewed evidence to fit his central argument, especially with the way he handled the issue of slavery.
First, let me state that Winik is not offering a justification for the slave system. He joins many other historians in showing that slavery was a political, social, and moral issue so intractible that the framers of the Constitution were forced to make strained, untenable compromises to balance the interests of pro- and anti-slave positions. Slavery was tied up in rights of states to order their internal affairs and in rights of property. It was such a pernicious problem that it took the upheaval of war to create a situation in which it could be dealt with effectively.
Where Winik goes wrong, I think, is that he mainly deals with slaveholding as a theoretical abstraction. When he deals with the on-the-ground reality of slavery, he seems to soften the image of it. Throughout the book, he persists in using the old Southern term servants instead of slaves. Calling them "servants" was a way Southerners rationalized and denied the true nature of their social system.
Winik also makes much of the movement in the South, that emerged during the war, to offer slaves emancipation in exchange for military service. While he mentions the widespread Southern opposition to this idea, most of his cited quotes are from people who prioritized Confederate independence over a continuation of the slave system. The emphasis is on Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, who argued in favor of raising black troops, rather than those against.
Lastly, Winik portrays the relations between slaveholders and slaves in an unbalanced way. He makes much of the paternally benevolent attitude held by some slaveowners. Jefferson Davis, for example, treated his slaves with respect, refrained from physical punishment, and maintained a higher than normal quality of life for his slaves. Winik makes much of this, as well as the devotion many slaves had for their masters. While he mentions that these attitudes and practices were exceptional, he never presents the inhumanity of slavery with any detail.
As I stated earlier, Winik is not trying to give the slaveholding South a pass. Unlike Southern apologists, he does not argue that slavery was tangential and that the war was really about states rights. Winik has mainly done what a lot of writers do; that is, he has squeezed and subverted his facts to better fit his main theme: that the events of the war crystalized in such a way that the two sections emerged as a unified country. As such, he wants to emphasize points of agreement, rather than continued division. As such, he downplays the violence perpetrated by white Southerners during the postwar period and after, as well as the majority Southern opinion that supported it.
Still, Winik's book is a decent, accessible account of an important point in US history, packed with a lot of interesting information. His contribution is to remind us that events were not inevitable even if, in hindsight, we view the South as all but defeated in April, 1865. Winik shows how events were not destined to occur as they did, but were brought about as the result of choices made in the context of a confusing, complicated situation.
May 9, 2021
This is a very readable narrative about the Civil War, focusing on the crucial month of April 1865. This was the month when Richmond fell and Lee tried to make his escape to link up with Joseph Johnston's Confederate army in North Carolina. That attempt failed with Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox on April 9, 1865. That great triumph was followed by terrible tragedy- the assassination of Lincoln (and also the wounding of the Sec. of State, William Seward). There would follow the massive manhunt for the assassin John Wilkes Booth and his death in Virginia. Johnston surrendered to Sherman in North Carolina by the end of April, with more surrenders of Confederate forces in May, as well as the the capture of the fugitive Confederate President Jefferson Davis by federal cavalry in Georgia.
Having said that the author Winik has written a readable narrative of the end of the Civil War, I can only give this book 3 stars. There are inaccuracies made in the book due to sloppiness but, also, due I think to his trying to make facts fit his opinions. Moreover, if Winick had limited his story to just that one month (and also May), it would have been a much better book. Instead, he ends up all over the place, discussing Thomas Jefferson and other topics and also breaking up his narrative by giving mini-biographies of Lincoln, Lee, Grant and others,which, while of some interest, were distractions from relating the events of one month (and it should be two months, including May).
As it was, I wanted more detail on the military operations of April (and May) 1865. The Wilson Raid of March-April 1865 was an important event near the end of the war but it gets very little mention. Winick does say that Gen. James Wilson was put in charge of the largest cavalry force ever assembled in North America--13,000 men-- with its objective being the arsenal at Selma, Alabama. Mention is made that Nathan Bedford Forrest was wounded and defeated at Selma on April 2, and that he managed to escape. Wilson not only won the Battle of Selma and destroyed the arsenal there but also occupied Montgomery (April 12). He won the Battle of Columbus, Georgia (April 16), "the Last Battle of the Civil War," not mentioned at all in a book supposedly about April 1865. On April 20, Wilson's men captured an unresisting Macon, Georgia, and the Raid ended there six days before Johnston's surrender. Winick does not say much about it but Wilson's Raid was a spectacular success. James Wilson captured five fortified cities in all, 288 cannons, and 6,820 prisoners at a loss of 725 U.S. casualties. When Winick mentions the capture of the fleeing Jefferson Davis on May 10 by Union cavalry, he does not mention that it was done by cavalry under Wilson's command. Reading that, I felt this book was an insult to the memory of one of the finest cavalry officers of the United States Army in American history, Major General James H. Wilson (1837-1925).
Winick's barely mentioning Wilson but giving much more detail on NB Forrest shows a pro-Southern bias on his part in my opinion. By slighting Wilson's successes, Winick bolsters his opinion that the Confederacy could have fought on, perhaps for months, by using guerrilla warfare. He ignores all the evidence that the defeats of the CSA and raids such as Sherman's March to the Sea and Wilson's Raid demoralized the majority of Southern whites. The South was crumbling due to massive desertions and draft resistance with wide areas of the South under the control of deserters in 1864-65. One good example (not mentioned in the book) was the "Free State of Jones" in Mississippi, where Confederate deserters and escaped slaves raised the US flag in Jones County, MS, and resisted the Confederates. Most importantly, Wilson's Raid showed that well-mounted battle-hardened Union cavalry--armed with 7-shot Spencer repeating rifles- could go anywhere they wanted to in the South and handily defeat what had become ill-armed ragtag rebel forces. So the Confederacy collapsed, although wide areas of the South, especially in Texas, had never been occupied by federal forces.
To be fair, while he only mentions that there were sieges of Fort Blakely and Spanish Fort in Alabama, Winick, in a footnote, states that for more information on those two battles, the reader should see "Out of the Storm: The End of the Civil War, April-June 1865" by Noah Andre Trudeau. That's the book I should have read. I will conclude that this book is OK ( 3 stars) as an introductory book on the end of the Civil War, but there are certainly a number of better and more complete books on the subject.
Having said that the author Winik has written a readable narrative of the end of the Civil War, I can only give this book 3 stars. There are inaccuracies made in the book due to sloppiness but, also, due I think to his trying to make facts fit his opinions. Moreover, if Winick had limited his story to just that one month (and also May), it would have been a much better book. Instead, he ends up all over the place, discussing Thomas Jefferson and other topics and also breaking up his narrative by giving mini-biographies of Lincoln, Lee, Grant and others,which, while of some interest, were distractions from relating the events of one month (and it should be two months, including May).
As it was, I wanted more detail on the military operations of April (and May) 1865. The Wilson Raid of March-April 1865 was an important event near the end of the war but it gets very little mention. Winick does say that Gen. James Wilson was put in charge of the largest cavalry force ever assembled in North America--13,000 men-- with its objective being the arsenal at Selma, Alabama. Mention is made that Nathan Bedford Forrest was wounded and defeated at Selma on April 2, and that he managed to escape. Wilson not only won the Battle of Selma and destroyed the arsenal there but also occupied Montgomery (April 12). He won the Battle of Columbus, Georgia (April 16), "the Last Battle of the Civil War," not mentioned at all in a book supposedly about April 1865. On April 20, Wilson's men captured an unresisting Macon, Georgia, and the Raid ended there six days before Johnston's surrender. Winick does not say much about it but Wilson's Raid was a spectacular success. James Wilson captured five fortified cities in all, 288 cannons, and 6,820 prisoners at a loss of 725 U.S. casualties. When Winick mentions the capture of the fleeing Jefferson Davis on May 10 by Union cavalry, he does not mention that it was done by cavalry under Wilson's command. Reading that, I felt this book was an insult to the memory of one of the finest cavalry officers of the United States Army in American history, Major General James H. Wilson (1837-1925).
Winick's barely mentioning Wilson but giving much more detail on NB Forrest shows a pro-Southern bias on his part in my opinion. By slighting Wilson's successes, Winick bolsters his opinion that the Confederacy could have fought on, perhaps for months, by using guerrilla warfare. He ignores all the evidence that the defeats of the CSA and raids such as Sherman's March to the Sea and Wilson's Raid demoralized the majority of Southern whites. The South was crumbling due to massive desertions and draft resistance with wide areas of the South under the control of deserters in 1864-65. One good example (not mentioned in the book) was the "Free State of Jones" in Mississippi, where Confederate deserters and escaped slaves raised the US flag in Jones County, MS, and resisted the Confederates. Most importantly, Wilson's Raid showed that well-mounted battle-hardened Union cavalry--armed with 7-shot Spencer repeating rifles- could go anywhere they wanted to in the South and handily defeat what had become ill-armed ragtag rebel forces. So the Confederacy collapsed, although wide areas of the South, especially in Texas, had never been occupied by federal forces.
To be fair, while he only mentions that there were sieges of Fort Blakely and Spanish Fort in Alabama, Winick, in a footnote, states that for more information on those two battles, the reader should see "Out of the Storm: The End of the Civil War, April-June 1865" by Noah Andre Trudeau. That's the book I should have read. I will conclude that this book is OK ( 3 stars) as an introductory book on the end of the Civil War, but there are certainly a number of better and more complete books on the subject.
July 18, 2008
More books have been written on the Civil War than any other topic, and yet there is always more to learn. I'm not one to find glamor in war, but the Civil War really does seem set apart in many ways. Its effects are still very much with us today; the crucible of the Civil War defines us.
Author Jay Winik does a masterful job of not just tracing the events of April 1865, but also of providing the context for those events. He examines the role of slavery in American life and the fact that many people, even those who were slave owners, recognized it as an institution that was destructive to the country (to say nothing of individual slaves). By opening up the book with a focus on Thomas Jefferson, Winik sets the stage for what is to come.
Winik makes the excellent point that looking back on the Civil War, a whole lot of things seem inevitable that were anything but. He also notes that during his lifetime, Abraham Lincoln was as loathed as he was loved. It really is important to remember both those things. We can look around our country today and think that the was things turned out was almost pre-ordained, but it's just not true.
Author Jay Winik does a masterful job of not just tracing the events of April 1865, but also of providing the context for those events. He examines the role of slavery in American life and the fact that many people, even those who were slave owners, recognized it as an institution that was destructive to the country (to say nothing of individual slaves). By opening up the book with a focus on Thomas Jefferson, Winik sets the stage for what is to come.
Winik makes the excellent point that looking back on the Civil War, a whole lot of things seem inevitable that were anything but. He also notes that during his lifetime, Abraham Lincoln was as loathed as he was loved. It really is important to remember both those things. We can look around our country today and think that the was things turned out was almost pre-ordained, but it's just not true.
January 4, 2023
A gripping look at the most precarious and pivotal month in American history. It’s chilling to ponder just how much could have easily, and tragically, turned out otherwise.
In substance and style, this book reminds me of two others: Joseph Ellis’s “Founding Brothers” (on the Revolutionary generation) and John Lukacs’s “Five Days in London, May 1940” (on Britain’s deciding whether to negotiate with Hitler). Both are superb.
In substance and style, this book reminds me of two others: Joseph Ellis’s “Founding Brothers” (on the Revolutionary generation) and John Lukacs’s “Five Days in London, May 1940” (on Britain’s deciding whether to negotiate with Hitler). Both are superb.
January 6, 2009
Although I do think that Jay Winik does a nice job of providing context for this period, I object to nearly every other part of this undertaking. Mr. Winik clearly is not a trained historian, and so emerge the glaring faults of this book. In the past decade or so, historians have begun to engage in the restoration of the Civil War from its post-war nostalgia that wiped away the primary cause: slavery. Such nostalgia paved the way for "lost cause" mythology (i.e. Gone With the Wind and now-lesser-known bestselling books) not to mention more tragic entries into American history.
Winik believes that he is doing a great service rescuing the Civil War from the dusty, "boring" annals of history, but truly his cavalier descriptions and hero-making are re-treads. We've already been here before. Has he not read Killer Angels? Has he not seen Ken Burns's documentaries? They were already done. One was written as a fictional novel, loosely based on stories, and the other was a misleading representation of the facts.
In the end, Winik plays loose with facts in lieu of finding the most dramatic superlative for Robert E. Lee. He falls to the same pitfalls of inaccurate death-tolls Winik is a tourist of a historian. He spends a relatively short period of time "immersing" in a topic and skips to the next that best fits his fancy for myth-making (didn't he just write a book on the Revolutionary War two years ago?). He has not truly spent the time necessary to know the context of the events, nor the trajectory afterwards. We should know at this point that the Civil War is not a free-standing event. Sadly, that is how it occurs too frequently in the collective memory, to the detriment of the temporary glorious success in the Reconstruction, followed by its crushing defeat through cowardice and fear. This book is nothing new. It's the same old Civil War "history" that's been done for decades. If you're looking for a genuine Civil War historian, I'd recommend MacPherson, or Foner or David Blight. If you're looking for entertaining Civil War drama/fiction, I'd go with Shelby Foote, before Jay Winik. [I'm sorry I really disliked this book, not helped by the fact that Winik is the most annoying, pretentious interviewee ever:]
Winik believes that he is doing a great service rescuing the Civil War from the dusty, "boring" annals of history, but truly his cavalier descriptions and hero-making are re-treads. We've already been here before. Has he not read Killer Angels? Has he not seen Ken Burns's documentaries? They were already done. One was written as a fictional novel, loosely based on stories, and the other was a misleading representation of the facts.
In the end, Winik plays loose with facts in lieu of finding the most dramatic superlative for Robert E. Lee. He falls to the same pitfalls of inaccurate death-tolls Winik is a tourist of a historian. He spends a relatively short period of time "immersing" in a topic and skips to the next that best fits his fancy for myth-making (didn't he just write a book on the Revolutionary War two years ago?). He has not truly spent the time necessary to know the context of the events, nor the trajectory afterwards. We should know at this point that the Civil War is not a free-standing event. Sadly, that is how it occurs too frequently in the collective memory, to the detriment of the temporary glorious success in the Reconstruction, followed by its crushing defeat through cowardice and fear. This book is nothing new. It's the same old Civil War "history" that's been done for decades. If you're looking for a genuine Civil War historian, I'd recommend MacPherson, or Foner or David Blight. If you're looking for entertaining Civil War drama/fiction, I'd go with Shelby Foote, before Jay Winik. [I'm sorry I really disliked this book, not helped by the fact that Winik is the most annoying, pretentious interviewee ever:]
November 6, 2015
A dramatic, vivid, and mostly well-written narrative history of one of America’s most dramatic months. Winik's style is dramatic and his argument is fairly fresh, but the narrative is often interrupted by unbearable and irritating tangents, and a lot of it just seems like filler.
The first event Winik describes is the fall of Richmond, and his rendition of the event is particularly dramatic. Lee’s retreat and Grant’s pursuit is also interesting, and Winik points out how seemingly out of character this was for Lee. He also gives us a good portrait of Grant and emphasizes his tenacity and his simple inability to even look defeated. The portions between the fall of Richmond and the surrender of Lee’s army is told in a more suspenseful style, and Winik emphasizes the contingency of Lee’s options, given that guerrilla warfare wasn’t exactly uncommon in other theaters of the war. Winik then covers the assassination of Lincoln, and the subsequent events are relatively anticlimactic. There is little discussion of the final battles in North Carolina.
Winik often harps on how pivotal April 1865 was, but his case often seems overblown because he never really discusses the factors that threatened the Confederacy's survival before that particular month. He writes that the Confederacy was as “aggressive as ever” in April, but this isn’t exactly easy to believe, and there is little discussion of civilian discontent, desertion, and the alienation of non-slaveholders. The narrative is often repetitive and redundant. At one point Winik brings up the Confederacy’s option of waging a guerrilla war in the south but then digresses into a plodding discussion of this possibility and some historical precedents that becomes a chore to slog through and feels completely unnecessary. This goes on for twelve pages but feels like forever when you actually force yourself to read it. Likewise, Winik’s discussion of Lincoln’s goals, record, and character is every bit as long-winded, and his recounting of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s career is unbearably lengthy.
While dramatic, Winik’s narrative style can get a bit too hyperbolic sometimes, and it feels like he tries to paint every single event as one of monumental importance. He also seems to exaggerate some aspects of Sherman’s march, at one point claiming that Sherman’s troops “massacred able-bodied males in Atlanta” (they did?) or burned Atlanta “for the sheer naked joy of it” (really?) He also seems to downplay the role of slavery in causing the war, and seems to suggest that southerners were more receptive to arming slaves than they really were. “In his time, “ Winik writes of Robert E. Lee, “he had arguably been justified in choosing his state over his Union.” Yeah...arguably. But for some reason Winik cites this as an example of Lee’s “strategic acumen,” which makes even less sense. Winik also calls Sayler’s Creek “the most significant battle of the war.” At one point he writes that “sixty percent of the war was fought on Virginia soil,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. At other times the writing becomes breezy; John Rawlins is called Grant’s “pal,” and Grant is described as having “a kind of built-in shock absorber.”
And, then there are little errors, like incorrect ship names, claiming John Brown was “summarily executed,” calling Simon Cameron a secretary of the treasury, calling William Mahone “tall,” writing that Joshua Chamberlain won a Medal of Honor by this time, and, of course, there are a couple of typos that are a little amusing when you read where Winik thanks some people in the acknowledgements for proofreading his manuscript.
A readable, elegant history of a crucial month, though not without its drawbacks.
The first event Winik describes is the fall of Richmond, and his rendition of the event is particularly dramatic. Lee’s retreat and Grant’s pursuit is also interesting, and Winik points out how seemingly out of character this was for Lee. He also gives us a good portrait of Grant and emphasizes his tenacity and his simple inability to even look defeated. The portions between the fall of Richmond and the surrender of Lee’s army is told in a more suspenseful style, and Winik emphasizes the contingency of Lee’s options, given that guerrilla warfare wasn’t exactly uncommon in other theaters of the war. Winik then covers the assassination of Lincoln, and the subsequent events are relatively anticlimactic. There is little discussion of the final battles in North Carolina.
Winik often harps on how pivotal April 1865 was, but his case often seems overblown because he never really discusses the factors that threatened the Confederacy's survival before that particular month. He writes that the Confederacy was as “aggressive as ever” in April, but this isn’t exactly easy to believe, and there is little discussion of civilian discontent, desertion, and the alienation of non-slaveholders. The narrative is often repetitive and redundant. At one point Winik brings up the Confederacy’s option of waging a guerrilla war in the south but then digresses into a plodding discussion of this possibility and some historical precedents that becomes a chore to slog through and feels completely unnecessary. This goes on for twelve pages but feels like forever when you actually force yourself to read it. Likewise, Winik’s discussion of Lincoln’s goals, record, and character is every bit as long-winded, and his recounting of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s career is unbearably lengthy.
While dramatic, Winik’s narrative style can get a bit too hyperbolic sometimes, and it feels like he tries to paint every single event as one of monumental importance. He also seems to exaggerate some aspects of Sherman’s march, at one point claiming that Sherman’s troops “massacred able-bodied males in Atlanta” (they did?) or burned Atlanta “for the sheer naked joy of it” (really?) He also seems to downplay the role of slavery in causing the war, and seems to suggest that southerners were more receptive to arming slaves than they really were. “In his time, “ Winik writes of Robert E. Lee, “he had arguably been justified in choosing his state over his Union.” Yeah...arguably. But for some reason Winik cites this as an example of Lee’s “strategic acumen,” which makes even less sense. Winik also calls Sayler’s Creek “the most significant battle of the war.” At one point he writes that “sixty percent of the war was fought on Virginia soil,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. At other times the writing becomes breezy; John Rawlins is called Grant’s “pal,” and Grant is described as having “a kind of built-in shock absorber.”
And, then there are little errors, like incorrect ship names, claiming John Brown was “summarily executed,” calling Simon Cameron a secretary of the treasury, calling William Mahone “tall,” writing that Joshua Chamberlain won a Medal of Honor by this time, and, of course, there are a couple of typos that are a little amusing when you read where Winik thanks some people in the acknowledgements for proofreading his manuscript.
A readable, elegant history of a crucial month, though not without its drawbacks.
January 8, 2013
If the American Civil War ended the way most civil wars end General Robert E. Lee and other high-ranking Confederate officers would have been hanged for treason, other lower level members of Confederate army sent to prison, and the residents of the Confederacy supporting states would have lost their rights indefinitely.
Jay Winik’s April 1865 is a fascination exploration into why the American Civil War did not end in this way: no one in the Confederate Army was executed or sent to prison, nor were the Confederacy states disenfranchised. To the contrary, the terms of surrender were generous: all the Confederate Army had to do was to surrender their weapons and go home. It’s interesting to read about how some Confederate Generals were preparing to resort to guerilla warfare and keep fighting. Fortunately, General Lee was able to convince them to surrender.
We will probably never know for sure what would’ve happened if the Confederate Army continued fighting—predictions seem to suggest that the Union would have eventually crushed the Confederate Army by force, though this could have taken years to complete. It is fair to assume that had this scenario occurred, instead of the peaceful surrender at Appomattox, the Union would probably have not been nearly as generous to a defeated Confederate Army as it was in 1865.
Jay Winik’s April 1865 is a fascination exploration into why the American Civil War did not end in this way: no one in the Confederate Army was executed or sent to prison, nor were the Confederacy states disenfranchised. To the contrary, the terms of surrender were generous: all the Confederate Army had to do was to surrender their weapons and go home. It’s interesting to read about how some Confederate Generals were preparing to resort to guerilla warfare and keep fighting. Fortunately, General Lee was able to convince them to surrender.
We will probably never know for sure what would’ve happened if the Confederate Army continued fighting—predictions seem to suggest that the Union would have eventually crushed the Confederate Army by force, though this could have taken years to complete. It is fair to assume that had this scenario occurred, instead of the peaceful surrender at Appomattox, the Union would probably have not been nearly as generous to a defeated Confederate Army as it was in 1865.
October 9, 2016
Written with an eye to current events by an author with governmental experience, April 1865's theme deals with how the United States managed to avoid perpetual civil strife upon the defeat of the Confederacy in May of that year. Focused as it is on the last weeks of the war, this book gives details not found in more broadly focused books on the subject, details about the surrenders of the various armies, about the death of Lincoln, about the last-minute addition of freed blacks into the armies of the Confederacy. Short biographical character descriptions of major players punctuate the generally chronological text.
November 10, 2013
I heard a lot of great things about this book, but I found it a bit disappointing. I thought the whole focus of the book would be about...well, April, 1865. But Winik was all over the place with his topics. It seemed as though he intially gathered information about just that month, discovered that it was not enough, and tacked on other tidbits about the war.
Also, I think he had a little too much fun with adverbs (at least I think they're adverbs. I could mean adjectives, but you be the judge). For example, whenever Winik quoted someone, it was never the typical "He said...", "She replied...", etc. It was things like "He bellowed...", "She screamed...", "He thundered...", "She roared..."
Now, I appreciate being creative in your writing, particularly when it comes to nonfictional works, but this seemed a little too much to me. But perhaps I'm just being a bit picky...or I'm secretly jealous of Winik's adverbial prowess : )
Also, I think he had a little too much fun with adverbs (at least I think they're adverbs. I could mean adjectives, but you be the judge). For example, whenever Winik quoted someone, it was never the typical "He said...", "She replied...", etc. It was things like "He bellowed...", "She screamed...", "He thundered...", "She roared..."
Now, I appreciate being creative in your writing, particularly when it comes to nonfictional works, but this seemed a little too much to me. But perhaps I'm just being a bit picky...or I'm secretly jealous of Winik's adverbial prowess : )
July 13, 2016
Beautiful example of a work that treats Lee's surrender at Appomattox as an example of American exceptionalism. He argues that the United States was able to do what few other countries have been able to do after Civil War...reconcile and unite.
I actually take exception to this argument, but I cannot say this book is not persuasive...it is.
Read this and Appomattox: Victory, Defeat and Freedom at the End of the Civil War by Elizabeth Varon back to back for well argued perspectives on both side of this question.
I actually take exception to this argument, but I cannot say this book is not persuasive...it is.
Read this and Appomattox: Victory, Defeat and Freedom at the End of the Civil War by Elizabeth Varon back to back for well argued perspectives on both side of this question.
April 15, 2018
Jay Winik's strength is his ability to provide vivid descriptions - his discussion of the condition of Lee's army as it prepared to leave the trenches of Petersburg, VA, gives you a real sense for the challenges that Lee and his army faced. The problems begin when Winik tries to place events in context. Winik seems to think that the history isn't dramatic enough and needs to pump it up. For Lee's effort to escape the trenches of Petersburg, Winik decides the best comparisons are Hannibal crossing the Alps, the Russian retreat in the face of Napoleon and the Bataan Death March. These all seem stretches - Hannibal was a great feat of an invading army; the Russian retreat was a strategic move that took advantage of Russia's great distances; and the Bataan Death March involved POWs, not an intact army. A better comparison would be the times that Lee worked to slip free of Grant during the Overland Campaign - not the same, but much closer than Winik's examples in my view. That also leads to Winik's statement that if Lee could pull this off, it "would almost certainly enshrine him among history's great commanders and tacticians." Foolish me thought that the previous 4 years had accomplished this.
It also feels that Winik is often fitting the facts to his story rather than the other way around. His discussion of Sherman, Atlanta and the March to the Sea blends events together to almost make it seem like Sherman, prior to the 1864 presidential election, left the railroad behind and captured Atlanta on the way to Savannah, rather than the more complicated story of maneuvering Johnston down to Atlanta, then defeating Johnston and Hood, capturing Atlanta to help seal Lincoln's 1864 presidential victory, then proposing to Grant the plan to march to the sea once Hood moved into Alabama. Winik also claims that Sherman's army "massacred able-bodied males" as part of the March to the Sea. Again - exaggeration in the interest of (unnecessarily) manufacturing drama.
It also feels that Winik is often fitting the facts to his story rather than the other way around. His discussion of Sherman, Atlanta and the March to the Sea blends events together to almost make it seem like Sherman, prior to the 1864 presidential election, left the railroad behind and captured Atlanta on the way to Savannah, rather than the more complicated story of maneuvering Johnston down to Atlanta, then defeating Johnston and Hood, capturing Atlanta to help seal Lincoln's 1864 presidential victory, then proposing to Grant the plan to march to the sea once Hood moved into Alabama. Winik also claims that Sherman's army "massacred able-bodied males" as part of the March to the Sea. Again - exaggeration in the interest of (unnecessarily) manufacturing drama.
January 21, 2009
A probing look at arguably the most pivotal month in American history. As we have learned many times since, wars are easy to start, but incredibly difficult to wrap up. Too many times the treaty that ends one war is the cause of the next.
As the Civil War drew to a close, the outcome of the conflict was certain, the fate of the nation was anything but. Our ability to come back together as one nation after such an acrimonious struggle hinged upon many variables. How would Lincoln regard the southern states: as traitors deserving punishment, or as family with whom we had quarreled but with whom we could now be reconciled? How would Lee react to defeat: by disbanding his army into the woods to fight on as guerrillas for generations to come? Or would he submit to the ignominy of surrender to save his countrymen from the horrors of a prolonged war of occupation? If he were to surrender, would the other Confederate generals follow his example?
Winik authoritatively examines the factors that went into these world-making decisions and the consequences that would have befallen the nation had those decisions turned out any differently. A great document for anyone interested in learning about the Civil War and how a few brave, far-sighted visionaries on both sides of the conflict paved the way for the United States to become the unified nation we know today.
As the Civil War drew to a close, the outcome of the conflict was certain, the fate of the nation was anything but. Our ability to come back together as one nation after such an acrimonious struggle hinged upon many variables. How would Lincoln regard the southern states: as traitors deserving punishment, or as family with whom we had quarreled but with whom we could now be reconciled? How would Lee react to defeat: by disbanding his army into the woods to fight on as guerrillas for generations to come? Or would he submit to the ignominy of surrender to save his countrymen from the horrors of a prolonged war of occupation? If he were to surrender, would the other Confederate generals follow his example?
Winik authoritatively examines the factors that went into these world-making decisions and the consequences that would have befallen the nation had those decisions turned out any differently. A great document for anyone interested in learning about the Civil War and how a few brave, far-sighted visionaries on both sides of the conflict paved the way for the United States to become the unified nation we know today.
August 18, 2011
This book takes a look back at the month of April, 1865, arguing it was one of the most influential months in our nation's history. In hindsight, we know that things worked out, however, none of that was a guarantee looking forward. It was an interesting read, albeit slow at times. The author is good at bringing personalities to life, so most of the time you don't feel like you're reading a textbook. A frustrating aspect for me was everytime you'd get close to a plot climax, he'd suddenly switch gears and give you the back-story of an involved character. After awhile, this tactic seemed to drag the book on a little long.
Overall, the book really makes you think about the things we take for granted, and how it wasn't always that way. Highly recommend if you're a history buff, or want a read to make you feel a bit smarter. Not for slackers.
Overall, the book really makes you think about the things we take for granted, and how it wasn't always that way. Highly recommend if you're a history buff, or want a read to make you feel a bit smarter. Not for slackers.
October 6, 2019
Initially 3.5/5, but it got much better. I love the subject matter, but at times it seemed like the author was too focused on grandiose literature than on the story being told. Maybe that was the point, but the subject matter itself was phenomenal. He expands the month of April 1865 and shows its impact upon our history. He also gives great detail in the histories of each historical figure, briefly describing the history and character of figures like Sherman, Lee, Grant, Lincoln, and many others. It was a slow start, but hang in there. It was definitely worth the read!
April 12, 2020
Excellent read. Winik noted that post WW2 Civil Wars seem to drag on forever and set out to learn how the US managed to end its Civil War. These are the fruits of his research.
At a Chautauqua Institute lecture, I heard Winik say that he’d received a lot of attention from the press when, as the US conflict in Iraq proceeded, Pres. Bush was photographed carrying a copy of this book while boarding a plane.
At a Chautauqua Institute lecture, I heard Winik say that he’d received a lot of attention from the press when, as the US conflict in Iraq proceeded, Pres. Bush was photographed carrying a copy of this book while boarding a plane.
November 12, 2012
A great event by event account of the closing of the Civil War.
January 1, 2013
Jay Winik’s April 1865: The Month that Saved America is a well-researched and well-written book about the last month of the American Civil War. This is a book that should not be missed by anyone who enjoys reading about history.
The author seems to be one of those rare writers who can convey both small details and overviews equally well. The small details create the important element of time and place to the story. It’s the weather, the typical social calendar of the upper crust of Richmond society, typical church services, what the opposing sides yelled at each other, the letters between Grant and Lee. He obviously did exhaustive research in order to present this month in such a way that the reader can experience it.
Winik also gives well-written and thoughtful sketches of the main players. I took particular delight in the people that are usually not focused on when discussing the Civil War: Vice President Johnson being a stand-out case. Winik takes the time to go over how a sitting presidential death has been handled before, from the Constitutional thinking to the actual practice. That sort of attention to detail and background is important, and it’s nice to see an author that respects that. Of course, having such a colorful story to tell in Johnson’s ascension to power is an extra gift from the historical gods. Another interesting person who is often overlooked is Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest.
The book covers some of the most engrossing scenes of American history: the fall of Richmond, the surrender at Appomattox, Abraham Lincoln’s visit to Richmond, Lincoln’s death (although the last was less informative than I anticipated, but I’ve also read a book that focused just on the last day of Lincoln’s life, so there would be no way to make Winik’s version as detailed).
There were many historical facts that I was not aware of (and I’m definitely a new person to the American Civil War story). I didn’t know about Davis’s continued calls for the beginning of guerilla warfare. The idea that this was a feasible worry at the time was something that often becomes lost when history rolls on and those possibilities are closed. I didn’t know that the South had been debating emancipating the slaves in a last minute effort to hold off defeat. I didn’t know the details of Lee’s armies last days before the actual surrender.
I know there’s been criticism about Winik putting in too much information that might be considered somewhat unconnected to the actual story. (The most criticized would probably be the part at the beginning of the book about Thomas Jefferson.) However, with a book as good as this, I don’t understand the impulse to find anything extra a bad thing.
The author seems to be one of those rare writers who can convey both small details and overviews equally well. The small details create the important element of time and place to the story. It’s the weather, the typical social calendar of the upper crust of Richmond society, typical church services, what the opposing sides yelled at each other, the letters between Grant and Lee. He obviously did exhaustive research in order to present this month in such a way that the reader can experience it.
Winik also gives well-written and thoughtful sketches of the main players. I took particular delight in the people that are usually not focused on when discussing the Civil War: Vice President Johnson being a stand-out case. Winik takes the time to go over how a sitting presidential death has been handled before, from the Constitutional thinking to the actual practice. That sort of attention to detail and background is important, and it’s nice to see an author that respects that. Of course, having such a colorful story to tell in Johnson’s ascension to power is an extra gift from the historical gods. Another interesting person who is often overlooked is Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest.
The book covers some of the most engrossing scenes of American history: the fall of Richmond, the surrender at Appomattox, Abraham Lincoln’s visit to Richmond, Lincoln’s death (although the last was less informative than I anticipated, but I’ve also read a book that focused just on the last day of Lincoln’s life, so there would be no way to make Winik’s version as detailed).
There were many historical facts that I was not aware of (and I’m definitely a new person to the American Civil War story). I didn’t know about Davis’s continued calls for the beginning of guerilla warfare. The idea that this was a feasible worry at the time was something that often becomes lost when history rolls on and those possibilities are closed. I didn’t know that the South had been debating emancipating the slaves in a last minute effort to hold off defeat. I didn’t know the details of Lee’s armies last days before the actual surrender.
I know there’s been criticism about Winik putting in too much information that might be considered somewhat unconnected to the actual story. (The most criticized would probably be the part at the beginning of the book about Thomas Jefferson.) However, with a book as good as this, I don’t understand the impulse to find anything extra a bad thing.
June 8, 2015
Winik's account of April 1864 could serve as a textbook example of how to write narrative history. He uses the events of the month as a framework within which to draw together the great historical threads that he posits were resolved that fateful month:
--The conception of America as one nation, the transition to "the United States" as a singular, not plural noun.
--The long history of threatened secession from all geographical and political quarters of the country in its brief history, and the locus of patriotic feeling in the states and not the country up to that time. As Winik reminds us, most states had a history, a political existence, and a citizenry who had demonstrated their loyalty well before they were part of the union of states that was seen as a federation of more (Lincoln's great thought) or less (the states rights position) binding power.
--The problem of Presidential succession after the death of a President, a Constitutional gray area that Winik examines to pull out the interesting insight that Chief Justice Salmon Chase also reviewed the Constitution and the slim precedents available to him in the tense hours after Lincoln's death.
--The real risk of the dissolution of the Civil War into a shadow country's guerrilla warfare carried on by the 100,000 Confederate soldiers still under arms even after Lee's surrender. Winik uses his sources and well-written arguments to remove the reader from the perfect hindsight of settled history back to the time when some Confederate politicians (Jefferson Davis among them), journalists, and (surprisingly few) military leaders counseled this very path. He shows how the actions and words of Lincoln, Lee, Grant, and Sherman were directed toward the prevention of this never-ending nightmare, and how Joseph Johnston's willingness to ignore the order of Jefferson Davis to withdraw to Texas to continue the fight as a guerrilla leader may have been the key piece palliative to this waking dream of horror.
Winik writes novelistic narrative to frame the subject and drive the action to a crisis in April 1865, then freeze-frames the present and draws the camera back and away to the broader landscape and scope of his thesis. These flashbacks actually constitute the meat of the book, but Winik never forgets the framework, or the reader's emotional suspension at the point of crisis, so he zooms back into the freeze-frame and completes the action in a way that keeps the reader's mind and emotions fully engaged.
Next, I will read and review Winik's newest narrative The Great Upheaval: America and the Birth of the Modern World, 1788-1800, with larger scope and more pages. Look for my review to follow there in about two weeks.
--The conception of America as one nation, the transition to "the United States" as a singular, not plural noun.
--The long history of threatened secession from all geographical and political quarters of the country in its brief history, and the locus of patriotic feeling in the states and not the country up to that time. As Winik reminds us, most states had a history, a political existence, and a citizenry who had demonstrated their loyalty well before they were part of the union of states that was seen as a federation of more (Lincoln's great thought) or less (the states rights position) binding power.
--The problem of Presidential succession after the death of a President, a Constitutional gray area that Winik examines to pull out the interesting insight that Chief Justice Salmon Chase also reviewed the Constitution and the slim precedents available to him in the tense hours after Lincoln's death.
--The real risk of the dissolution of the Civil War into a shadow country's guerrilla warfare carried on by the 100,000 Confederate soldiers still under arms even after Lee's surrender. Winik uses his sources and well-written arguments to remove the reader from the perfect hindsight of settled history back to the time when some Confederate politicians (Jefferson Davis among them), journalists, and (surprisingly few) military leaders counseled this very path. He shows how the actions and words of Lincoln, Lee, Grant, and Sherman were directed toward the prevention of this never-ending nightmare, and how Joseph Johnston's willingness to ignore the order of Jefferson Davis to withdraw to Texas to continue the fight as a guerrilla leader may have been the key piece palliative to this waking dream of horror.
Winik writes novelistic narrative to frame the subject and drive the action to a crisis in April 1865, then freeze-frames the present and draws the camera back and away to the broader landscape and scope of his thesis. These flashbacks actually constitute the meat of the book, but Winik never forgets the framework, or the reader's emotional suspension at the point of crisis, so he zooms back into the freeze-frame and completes the action in a way that keeps the reader's mind and emotions fully engaged.
Next, I will read and review Winik's newest narrative The Great Upheaval: America and the Birth of the Modern World, 1788-1800, with larger scope and more pages. Look for my review to follow there in about two weeks.
May 14, 2010
I suppose the greatest challenge for an author writing about the Civil War is that four out of five readers are already fairly versed on the subject. Of those, perhaps a great many even feel they are more knowledgeable about the subject than the author. A Civil War history, in many cases, is essentially a test for authors, to gauge to what extent their opinions conform with the predjudices of the readers.
By preferring Lee to Grant and Davis to Lincoln, as the author has done, he undoubtedly courts the underdog bloc of Southern fetishists and latter-day redeemers. Unfortunately, he runs afoul of this reader in the process.
However, that's sort of the knee-jerk reaction. Upon reflection, I wonder instead if Jay Winik hasn't made the unspoken observation that books extolling Lincoln and Grant abound and a closer look at Lee and Davis are simply needed to fill a gap in the popular history. There is evidence to support this idea, since Winik seems to think quite highly of General Sherman and poorly of Forrest. No true Southern apologist would dare express either opinion. Yet, surely an exploration of the "real" Robert E. Lee isn't necessary - he is the subject of as many (if not more) books as Grant.
After much reflection, I conclude that Winik has researched and written several books on the Civil War and then cut them into confetti. Then he's shaken it all up, like a snow globe, and let the pieces fall where they will. There is no other explanation for a book whose thesis is the thrillingly focused beam of a single month to immediately plunge backwards into a star-struck eulogy for Thomas Jefferson and devolve into a Pop Up Video trivia fest about 20th century captains of industry.
By preferring Lee to Grant and Davis to Lincoln, as the author has done, he undoubtedly courts the underdog bloc of Southern fetishists and latter-day redeemers. Unfortunately, he runs afoul of this reader in the process.
However, that's sort of the knee-jerk reaction. Upon reflection, I wonder instead if Jay Winik hasn't made the unspoken observation that books extolling Lincoln and Grant abound and a closer look at Lee and Davis are simply needed to fill a gap in the popular history. There is evidence to support this idea, since Winik seems to think quite highly of General Sherman and poorly of Forrest. No true Southern apologist would dare express either opinion. Yet, surely an exploration of the "real" Robert E. Lee isn't necessary - he is the subject of as many (if not more) books as Grant.
After much reflection, I conclude that Winik has researched and written several books on the Civil War and then cut them into confetti. Then he's shaken it all up, like a snow globe, and let the pieces fall where they will. There is no other explanation for a book whose thesis is the thrillingly focused beam of a single month to immediately plunge backwards into a star-struck eulogy for Thomas Jefferson and devolve into a Pop Up Video trivia fest about 20th century captains of industry.
July 23, 2020
This was a superb book. I've had it on my shelves for over a decade and had never read it. The recent events of the summer of 2020 and watching the Confederate monuments come down in my hometown of Richmond, Va. made this an opportune time to read this. Wonderfully researched and crafted history. We are reminded how history is not pre-ordained and is the result of an accumulation of individual decisions and what often appear to be random circumstances upon which key actors make their decisions. We see the resolve of Robert E. Lee and Joseph Johnston not to want to perpetuate military hostilities and commence with national reconciliation, even in defiance of Jefferson Davis' orders to take the armies into a guerilla state. We the see the fervent desire of Abraham Lincoln to bind up the wounds of the country and not to seek retribution - and how this was cut down by an assassin's bullet. And how close the conspirators came to wiping out the entire Administration. We see the pain and suffering of the Civil War still in our streets today and realize how much mending still needs to occur. April 1865 was a consequential year in our nation's history and this book vividly tells us how close we came to not having the United States as we know it, warts and all, so that we can attempt to continue Lincoln's dream of creating a more perfect union." So glad I pulled this volume down from the shelves when I did.
July 5, 2011
A fascinating book on the last month of the Civil War. There were dozens of nuggets from this book that I will take with me as nice stories to share with my students. My favorite chapter was easily the one that dealt with the surrender of Lee's army and the meeting of Lee and Grant. The author writes with grace and puts you into the house at Appomattox. The level of respect these two men had for each other after spending months trying to defeat the other is incredible. Great stuff.
My main criticism of this book is that only about half of it really talks about April of 1865. Every time a major figure is mentioned, the author takes 5-10 pages to go back and tell that person's biography. I understand that some context is necessary to fully tell the story of the end of the War, but I felt that it slowed down the story and gave us more than we really needed. Also, unless you are very new to the Civil War, the background stories do not truly provide any vital information.
I would recommend this read to any Civil War lovers.
My main criticism of this book is that only about half of it really talks about April of 1865. Every time a major figure is mentioned, the author takes 5-10 pages to go back and tell that person's biography. I understand that some context is necessary to fully tell the story of the end of the War, but I felt that it slowed down the story and gave us more than we really needed. Also, unless you are very new to the Civil War, the background stories do not truly provide any vital information.
I would recommend this read to any Civil War lovers.
January 25, 2016
Hands down the #1 Best Book I Ever Read
Non-Fiction - read approx. 10 years ago
This fascinating, unputdownable book in highly engrossing, suspenseful, heartbreaking, and educational. This book painted a picture of the desperation and horror of this war (or any war) like nothing I'd seen or read before. The utter destruction of towns, villages, cities -- how desperate the lives of the women and children not fighting -- shocking and heartbreaking.
Abraham Lincoln has always been history's most intriguing character for me. His presiding over this brother-against brother, extremely challenging and bloody war is a testament to his courage and inner strength that would have broken most men.
Non-Fiction - read approx. 10 years ago
This fascinating, unputdownable book in highly engrossing, suspenseful, heartbreaking, and educational. This book painted a picture of the desperation and horror of this war (or any war) like nothing I'd seen or read before. The utter destruction of towns, villages, cities -- how desperate the lives of the women and children not fighting -- shocking and heartbreaking.
Abraham Lincoln has always been history's most intriguing character for me. His presiding over this brother-against brother, extremely challenging and bloody war is a testament to his courage and inner strength that would have broken most men.
May 19, 2017
April 1865, the Civil War is dragging to a close and Southerners are threatening to take to the woods and hills to continue the fight. Abraham Lincoln feared this enough to talk to his generals about welcoming their Southern brothers back into the Union. Talking about forgiveness and ending the fighting. His foresight and leadership changed the history even after his death. Robert E. Lee's surrender also shaped the peace and kept it during the upheaval of Lincoln's assassination.
Why I started this book: Found a short audio copy of the book and I was eager to listen to it.
Why I finished it: Answered the interesting question that I never thought to ask; Why did the Civil War end and not linger as it did in some many other places like the Middle East, Ireland or the Balkans.
Why I started this book: Found a short audio copy of the book and I was eager to listen to it.
Why I finished it: Answered the interesting question that I never thought to ask; Why did the Civil War end and not linger as it did in some many other places like the Middle East, Ireland or the Balkans.
August 14, 2017
This book is the absolute BEST book I've ever read about the Civil War. I didn't want it to end, so much so that I purposely set it aside to make it last longer. It was riveting even as I knew the outcome. I learned so much that was either forgotten or never taught to me. Insights into a few generals and leaders made me change long-held beliefs I had, many for the better. I was also brought to tears many times with his description of battles, hardships or individual people on both sides of the war. Quite simply, an amazing book that I list in my top 10 books of my life.
June 20, 2008
History was the one subject I absolutely couldn't stand in college, buy Jay Winik makes the epic battle between north and south read like a novel, with outstanding insight into the character of Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and so many more.
July 31, 2020
The bookcase in my den is ennobled by Civil War tales told by Bruce Catton, William Safire, McKinlay Kantor, E.L Doctorow, David Von Drehle, Doris Kerns Goodwin, Jeff Sahara, Michael Sahara, Stephen Sears, Shelby Foote, Ron Chernow, James McPherson, and other lesser lights. Each of them elevated my understanding of the Civil War. Some were focused on the battles, some on the politics, others on the strategies, and even more on the day-to-day strife of both the warriors and citizens. This volume, however, maybe the best Civil War book I have ever read.
It must be pointed out that the author had a less treacherous path to follow as he only covers one month of the war, not the entire four years but he does a truly masterful job. His book is thorough in his interpretations of the strategies used on both sides. The maneuvers made on the battlefields are clearly explained. The yin and yang of the emotions that tortured Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee are painfully felt by the reader. The fear and dismay of the citizens of Richmond in its final days leave the reader unsettled. But its not all painful. There is much to admire and, even envy, in the characters of Lincoln, Lee, and Grant.
April 1865 found the Army of Northern Virginia hopelessly outnumbered by the Army of the Potomac. To make matters worse, Grant showed no intention of surrendering to doubts and fears as many former Union Generals had done. No “to be or not to be” for Grant. Like a bulldog, he refused to be cowered regardless of how many men he lost. Thus, the sobriquet “Grant the Butcher”. Lee’s plan, after much discussion with Davis, was to leave the Richmond/Petersburg areas to the union troops and head towards North Carolina to meet up with General Joe Johnston. Instead after many tenacious struggles in early April, Lee found himself near Appomattox in a desperate situation. His choices were to have one final massive battle which would undoubtedly lead to the massacre of most of his troops and the destruction of the Confederacy or to sue for peace acknowledging the failure of the entire effort and leaving the South at the mercy of the victorious North or the seductive appeal of sending his men into the hills to conduct guerilla warfare. The latter was favored by President Davis. Lee did not agree.
The two luminaries in the small room in Appomattox could not have been more different. Lee was of American royalty. Two of his ancestors signed the Declaration of Independence. Grant, on the other hand, had been a failure at everything he tried. He was considered an incompetent drunk and dismissed from the military before the war began. These two shared one staggering goal which was to bring their countries together. The decisions made in that room were nothing short of heroic but doomed to failure as the ghosts of April resumed command.
On Good Friday, President Lincoln was shot while attending a play at Ford’s Theater. He died on Easter Sunday which was soon known as Black Easter. Booth’s hair-brained idea stunned the nation and sent Washington into chaos. The key figures in government were now inundated with the need to identify and capture all involved in the assassination, to prepare for further assassination attempts, and to figure out how to return the South to the foal.
Later in the month, General Sherman held several meetings with General Joe Johnston at which he offered surrender terms that were even more lenient than those offered at Appomattox. The south accepted the terms but they got no support in the north. Showing that the media in those days were not much different than today, the northern press accused Sherman of being in league with the Confederacy and, possibly, being involved in the assassination. Grant was quickly sent to join Sherman and the battles continued. Eventually, Johnston agreed to the Appomattox terms and the war was, for the most part, over. Over 620,000 people died. – one-twelfth of the North and one-fifth of the South. April was probably the most eventful and calamitous months our country has ever experienced. The highs were to the Heavens, the lows to the Hells. The impact of such contrasting personalities as Lincoln, Lee, Grant, Sherman, and lesser lights such as Mosby and Forest are immeasurable. Prior to the Civil War people would say “The United States are”. Now they say “The United States is”.
It must be pointed out that the author had a less treacherous path to follow as he only covers one month of the war, not the entire four years but he does a truly masterful job. His book is thorough in his interpretations of the strategies used on both sides. The maneuvers made on the battlefields are clearly explained. The yin and yang of the emotions that tortured Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee are painfully felt by the reader. The fear and dismay of the citizens of Richmond in its final days leave the reader unsettled. But its not all painful. There is much to admire and, even envy, in the characters of Lincoln, Lee, and Grant.
April 1865 found the Army of Northern Virginia hopelessly outnumbered by the Army of the Potomac. To make matters worse, Grant showed no intention of surrendering to doubts and fears as many former Union Generals had done. No “to be or not to be” for Grant. Like a bulldog, he refused to be cowered regardless of how many men he lost. Thus, the sobriquet “Grant the Butcher”. Lee’s plan, after much discussion with Davis, was to leave the Richmond/Petersburg areas to the union troops and head towards North Carolina to meet up with General Joe Johnston. Instead after many tenacious struggles in early April, Lee found himself near Appomattox in a desperate situation. His choices were to have one final massive battle which would undoubtedly lead to the massacre of most of his troops and the destruction of the Confederacy or to sue for peace acknowledging the failure of the entire effort and leaving the South at the mercy of the victorious North or the seductive appeal of sending his men into the hills to conduct guerilla warfare. The latter was favored by President Davis. Lee did not agree.
The two luminaries in the small room in Appomattox could not have been more different. Lee was of American royalty. Two of his ancestors signed the Declaration of Independence. Grant, on the other hand, had been a failure at everything he tried. He was considered an incompetent drunk and dismissed from the military before the war began. These two shared one staggering goal which was to bring their countries together. The decisions made in that room were nothing short of heroic but doomed to failure as the ghosts of April resumed command.
On Good Friday, President Lincoln was shot while attending a play at Ford’s Theater. He died on Easter Sunday which was soon known as Black Easter. Booth’s hair-brained idea stunned the nation and sent Washington into chaos. The key figures in government were now inundated with the need to identify and capture all involved in the assassination, to prepare for further assassination attempts, and to figure out how to return the South to the foal.
Later in the month, General Sherman held several meetings with General Joe Johnston at which he offered surrender terms that were even more lenient than those offered at Appomattox. The south accepted the terms but they got no support in the north. Showing that the media in those days were not much different than today, the northern press accused Sherman of being in league with the Confederacy and, possibly, being involved in the assassination. Grant was quickly sent to join Sherman and the battles continued. Eventually, Johnston agreed to the Appomattox terms and the war was, for the most part, over. Over 620,000 people died. – one-twelfth of the North and one-fifth of the South. April was probably the most eventful and calamitous months our country has ever experienced. The highs were to the Heavens, the lows to the Hells. The impact of such contrasting personalities as Lincoln, Lee, Grant, Sherman, and lesser lights such as Mosby and Forest are immeasurable. Prior to the Civil War people would say “The United States are”. Now they say “The United States is”.
September 15, 2021
A book ostensibly about one month in American history that was anything but. It reminded me of those people -- my absolute favorite people, for the record -- who start a story about what they ate for breakfast yesterday with an overview of their father's mother's mid-life migration's impact on their culinary palate. The book about April 1865 includes about multi-page (and sometimes as many as 50) passages on the Constitutional Convention, the history of guerrilla warfare, biographies of Robert E. Lee, U.S. Grant, Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, and John Wilkes Booth, just to name a few, and so much more. The context is incredible. The writing was, too.
What stands out most in this book is just how differently things could have gone, but for one change: a personal choice, an accident, or even the weather. Any of these could have affected the outcome of a particular battle, the whole war, or the events that unfolded afterwards as the nation attempted to move on. We never dwell too extensively in alternate universes, but by my very rough counting through the book, there are at least five or six, realistically, that we could have ended up in (the most significant ones in my mind being had either Confederate Generals Lee or Johnston chosen to obey Jefferson Davis' orders to retreat to the mountains and begin a guerrilla war, thus prolonging the conflict and potentially beating America to its first 'Vietnam' by over 100 years). These alternate worlds are utterly fascinating to consider.
Where Winik loses points are his sometimes formulaic/repetitive character descriptions (o rlly? this famous historical figure was a conglomeration of somewhat contradictory views??), as well as his descriptions of southerners/The South that occasionally crept past sympathetic and made me wonder where his loyalties really lay. A good deal of this is likely attributable to the book's being written in 2002, well before dutiful historians realized that they should probably get woke. If read in good faith and with an open mind, these drawbacks are surmountable.
An excellent read for anyone who hopes to dive deeper into the Civil War and the Second Founding of our nation!
What stands out most in this book is just how differently things could have gone, but for one change: a personal choice, an accident, or even the weather. Any of these could have affected the outcome of a particular battle, the whole war, or the events that unfolded afterwards as the nation attempted to move on. We never dwell too extensively in alternate universes, but by my very rough counting through the book, there are at least five or six, realistically, that we could have ended up in (the most significant ones in my mind being had either Confederate Generals Lee or Johnston chosen to obey Jefferson Davis' orders to retreat to the mountains and begin a guerrilla war, thus prolonging the conflict and potentially beating America to its first 'Vietnam' by over 100 years). These alternate worlds are utterly fascinating to consider.
Where Winik loses points are his sometimes formulaic/repetitive character descriptions (o rlly? this famous historical figure was a conglomeration of somewhat contradictory views??), as well as his descriptions of southerners/The South that occasionally crept past sympathetic and made me wonder where his loyalties really lay. A good deal of this is likely attributable to the book's being written in 2002, well before dutiful historians realized that they should probably get woke. If read in good faith and with an open mind, these drawbacks are surmountable.
An excellent read for anyone who hopes to dive deeper into the Civil War and the Second Founding of our nation!
April 13, 2019
If you want to learn what our nation is built from this is a good place to start. It tells the story of the culmination of the civil war in April 1865. It describes how true leaders, both politicians, generals, and common people from both sides, chose reconciliation, reconstruction, and nation instead of chaos and hatred. It describes Lincoln's foresight and leadership as well as Lee's leadership. I highly recommend you read it. A little tough going at times, but well worth the effort. It's a tale of how we became who we are.
August 21, 2021
One of my favorite reads recently. I love reading history books and this one was no exception. Absolutely phenomenal work from Jay Winik. Living in the deep south has taught me that understanding what happened during the Civil War is, unfortunately, an essential cultural apologetic. The way that civil war history has been twisted in the South and taught in a distorted collection of half-truths is heartbreaking. Looking forward to more reading on this topic.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 514 reviews