Learn more Download now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more

Customer reviews

4.8 out of 5 stars

TOP 100 REVIEWERVINE VOICEon 28 December 2011
Many historians including the late great Shelby Foote have observed that the fundamental genius of the American political system of government is to seek compromise. And yet the decision of the framers of the Constitution to "park" the issue of slavery in 1797 left a cancer in the American body politic which turned malignant in the mid part of the 19th century. This excellent new general history by Southern historian David Goldfield concentrates on that failure of compromise and firmly lays the blame for this at the door of the infusion of evangelical religious fervour into politics in making conciliation virtually impossible as the 1850s progressed. This issue is brilliantly studied by Goldfield and whereas most books on the civil war will start with the examination of the Mexican War or Bleeding Kansas, he commences in 1834 by dissecting the burning of the Ursuline convent in Charlestown Massachusetts which had become became an object of vicious scorn for anti-Catholic sentiment in the 1830s. Why is this important? Goldfield shows that religious discord and sectarian conflict which materialised in different forms such as Anti-Catholic, Anti-Jewish and Anti-Black Evangelical Christian ideologues effectively destroyed the search for consensus which underpins the constitution. No where was this polarisation more bellicose or visceral than on the question of slavery. The debate was understandably dominated by concepts of an absolute "right" and "wrong" exemplified by a small band of Evangelical Protestants who led Northern abolitionism and in the South by a deeply embedded racist faith in slavery as a guarantor of a threatened way of life. Certainly some politicians like Alexander Stephens and Stephen Douglas cautiously searched for a compromise solutions but the gulf of political polarization was seismic and epitomised by the great abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison's symbolic burning of the constitution and its slavery compromise as a "covenant with death, an agreement with hell,". Equally in 1856 when Preston Smith Brooks a Senator from South Carolina beat Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner unconscious with a cane on the house floor because of one his abolitionist speeches The Richmond Enquirer crowed: "We consider the act good in conception, better in execution, and best of all in consequences. These vulgar abolitionists in the Senate must be lashed into submission."

Goldfield's thesis is controversial and revisionist. It is also on occasions far too neat and precise. It was Abraham Lincoln after all who tried to navigate a way through this and his first inauguration speech in 1861 was a delicate attempt to address the "apprehension of the Southern states" where Lincoln assured his intention not to interfere in slavery "in the states where it exists". Yet a moral issue like slavery could not be negotiated away or be subject to shady political deals. Was a compromise possible? In truth the answer was certainly not. The tragedy of this of course was that the number of American dead in the Civil War exceeded in combination all those who died from the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican War, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, and Korea combined. Provocatively Goldfield calculates that the Civil War cost around $6.7 billion in 1860s currency. He then asserts that if "the government had purchased the freedom of four million slaves and granted a 40-acre farm to each slave family, the total cost would have been $3.1 billion, leaving $3.6 billion for reparations to make up for a century of lost wages. And not a single life would have been lost."

The "Ifs" and "buts" of this book make for an absorbing tour de force of scholarship when equally combined with a very solid narrative about the course of the civil war. In particular Goldfield's scrutiny of the inherent weaknesses of the Reconstruction or as some southerners saw it "the redemption" with the restoration of white supremacy is brilliantly done. More than anything else Goldfield's book is a warning about the toxic mix of religion and politics which the framers of the constitution sought to avoid but which consistently rears it ugly head in US politics often with the worse of consequences (there are some chilling similarities with the present). If you are a civil war "buff" seek out "America Aflame" for a refreshing, controversial and panoramic study of the defining event of American History.
22 Comments| 7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
TOP 500 REVIEWERVINE VOICEon 5 August 2014
This book is billed as a major new interpretation of the Civil War, but to be honest I'm not sure how 'new' an interpretation it really is. It focuses more heavily on the evangelical religious impulses interwoven through antebellum America society than perhaps other histories have done, and certainly those religious revivals played a more important role than has hitherto been acknowledged, but I'm not sure that entirely qualifies as a whole new interpretation of the War.

Goldfield's central thesis is that the rise of evangelical religion and its intrusion into politics is largely what led to the schism between North and South. When both sides believe their culture, way of life and beliefs to be not just preferable, not just right, but divinely sanctified, compromise is inevitably all but impossible. To the North, slavery was not just wrong, but evil. To the South, their way of life, slavery and all, was a divine blessing and the slave's role part of the natural order ordained by God. Once God starts to be invoked, conflict is usually inevitable, as the stakes become so much greater than simple politics or economics. In support of this argument, Goldfield connects the evangelical impulses to the strong anti-Catholicism of the time that infused other major political issues of the day such as anti-immigration and nativism.

It's a fine theory, and one I can well believe. He writes well in support of it, and this is an excellent examination of antebellum America from the 1830s onwards, quite apart from this new angle in the causes of the conflict. The book loses a little steam during the post-war narrative where his narrative deviates somewhat from the central thesis - if Civil War America was a direct result of these evangelical impulses, post-war America was a result of, well, the War and the religious angle loses focus. So a fine book and an excellent addition to any Civil War library, but perhaps not quite a ground-breaking as the publicists would have you believe.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
TOP 1000 REVIEWERon 9 April 2013
This is a very different type of Civil War book. Rather than battles or politics, it takes a long look at the reasons that things turned out the way they did, about the evolution of American society and institutions, of the feelings of the people of the period. The breadth of the portrait, in time covered but also the lives lived, is astonishingly dense.

On one level, it is a splendid introduction for the general reader. Starting in the 1830s, it goes all the way to the end - the definitive failure - of Reconstruction in 1876. The bulk of the events in the book are, of course, during the Civil War itself, but Goldfield also covers the end of the Indian Wars, the establishment of modernism as industrialization accelerated, and the way that American institutions took the form that have more or less lasted to the present day. This is presented as a narrative, stories following the lifetimes of many interesting characters (e.g. Walt Whitman, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglass, and Jefferson Davis), but with plenty of analyses seamlessly woven in. Whether you know the events and concepts or not, the tableau that Goldfield paints is an extraordinary pleasure to read, vivid, and written with an elegant precision that is absolutely masterful.

On a deeper level, he has a number of points that he wants to make. This is where the book gets original, even hard hitting in its unflinching interpretations. Because he is arguing against what can only be called myths, there are many who will vehemently disagree with his take.

First, he looks at the causes of the Civil War. On the one hand, he argues that the question of slavery was indeed the principal reason that North opposed South and vice versa. This was the case, he argues, because of the importance of slavery to the society of the South. Not only did it allow slaveowners to create a kind of stagnant, pseudo-aristocratic lifestyle in spite of the industrial revolution underway, but even poor whites had a class to look down upon and humiliate as inferiors. If slavery ended as an institution, the balance of this society as it was would die. Interestingly, this is the precise line of argument that Southerners have sought to demolish or suppress through a political and academic machine for the last 150 years, arguing that it was states' rights, that they were victims of Northern aggression, etc.

On the other hand, Goldfield goes into great detail about the impact of the Second Great Awakening, the extraordinary upsurge of evangelical protestantism from the early 1830s. This was the time that Mormonisn, Seventh Day Adventism, and hundreds of other denominations were established, espousing absolute certainly in their views and the ability to personally discern the intent of God. This reinforced America's sense of its uniqueness and mission as the only democratic nation in existence and as the place that God had chosen for paradise. Taken together, this fatally hardened the views of both North and South, he argues, with each church asserting that it represented the absolute just cause - and guaranteed quick success in war.

Second, the reason that the North was so fanatically devoted to maintaining the Union was the fear of anarchy and disintegration: observers had closely followed events in Europe, starting with the "terror" of the French Revolution but focusing on the contemporary crises as embodied in the apparently failed revolutions of 1848. They worried that "too much democracy" would lead to chaos and dissipate energies in petty disputes and wars. According to this logic, the breakup of the Union was only the beginning of a slide to anarchy, whereby other states would break off and the result would be tiny states incessantly warring on each other. The Union, and the democratic experiment it represented, had to go on in their view.

Third, the Civil War accelerated a number of economic and technological trends underway. In many ways, it was the culmination of the modernism that began with the French Revolution and steam-powered industrialization: societies were no longer static and cyclical, based on rigid class privileges and incontrovertible limits, but opening up in completely unpredictable ways. America was linking itself with rail roads, enabling commerce to develop but also the use of industrial organization to wage war: it was the first truly modern war, revealing America even then as a great power that would surpass the older colonial powers in Europe. This was, he argues, the pragmatic ideology - with its profound belief in progress and science - that took the place of the ideological absolutism of the 1830s Evangelical movements, particularly once the soldiers realized that God's will did not extend to the battlefield but led instead to unimaginable carnage. Replacing faith alone, the vocabulary of science gained a permanent place in the American political discourse.

Fourth, he believes, the failure of Reconstruction was entirely due to the reprise of power by the same people who held office and property in the South before the Civil War. The principal mechanism to accomplish this was the complete political disenfranchisement of blacks, who had gained some role in Reconstruction. According to Goldfield, there was no northern misrule, no humiliation of whites (beyond losing the war), and no unusual corruption in a very corrupt age. It was less about the rights of whites than about their psychological need to dominate the former slaves, essentially keeping them down with cruelty and violence. The Ku Klux Klan was America's first terrorist organization and was completely effective in its aims.

Fifth, the result was that the South, however exotic and charming it appeared from the outside, remained a backward region for the next century, lacking a competitive labor force due to cheap black labor without protection by law, based on political oppression, and supported by a sense of victimhood and self-righteous religious fervor, psychologically stunted and full of willful delusion. Meanwhile, the North progressed with explosive dynamism, fulfilling its promise to lead the world alongside the European powers. With its ideology of progress and fascination with science, the North developed world-class educational institutions and research universities and served as the base of industrial investment.

My criticisms of the book are few. I still cannot quite get my head around the failure of Reconstruction, however much this book helped to clarify matters such as power relations and the mentality of the South. The last 3rd of the book seemed to wander a bit to me, lacking the tightness of focus of the earlier portions that covered the march to war.

This is very powerful stuff, bound for controversy. Though a Northerner, I grew up with close family in the South, so I have a particular affection for the region as well as some understanding of the underside. In my opinion, much of what Goldfield argues is correct. What is truly great about this book is how Goldfield ties it all together. It is compulsively readable and every page fascinates and stimulates the reader to search for more. This is one of the best history books I have read in years. Recommended with the greatest enthusiasm.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 21 August 2013
I gave this as a present to a family member who is now living in the States, and who told me (after quite a while as it is a very long book) that he had enjoyed reading this - it had improved his knowledge of the history of the US enormously, being much more revealing than many standard histories he'd come across.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse

Need customer service? Click here

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)