Why the Civil War Still Matters - The War That Forged a Nation

Interesting and easy to read history of the civil war era. Particularly interesting was the rise and fall of reconstruction. Then, like now, we the people, tired of war and conflict and as victors simply gave into the vanquished south. Winning the war and losing the peace. Sound familiar at all?

i think that mcpherson's book battle cry of freedom is best book i have ever read re the civil war & i recomend anyone that wants to know about that war & only wants to read one book, to read that one; therefore i had high expectations for this one but it dissapointed only because my expectations were so high; i have some friends who think the north should have let the south succeed, that it was not worth keeping; i do not agree wholehearted with that position but i understand the animosity that still exists between people from north & south until this day & thought this book might deal more with that but it did not; still a good read to understand the war & some of its impacts which are still felt today

McPherson is undeniably an excellent writer, and this series of essays again highlights his ability to clarify and focus specific aspects of the Civil War. After many years of writing however, there is an almost evangelical fervor in his attempts to convince the reader that the ultimate outcome of the war (abolition of slavery) excuses the political infighting and cold, calculated power-mongering that contributed to this bloody melee. In some way, ignoring the pragmatics that drove the nation to violence somehow lessens the idealism that would ultimately spring from this terrible period in history.

I recently reread and reviewed Bruce Catton’s acclaimed one volume history of the American Civil War, (This Hallowed Ground). I first read Catton’s work a half century ago, the first “real” history book that I attempted. On the review of the reread, I gave Catton’s book “6-stars,” my own designation for truly exceptional books. So, when James McPherson’s book, subtitled “Why the Civil War Still Matters” popped up on my Vine list, I naturally had to say yes. McPherson is Professor Emeritus in United States History at Princeton, and is most famous for his 1989 history of the American Civil War, entitled (Battle Cry of Freedom) which won the Pulitzer Prize.

This is a collection of 12 essays, only two of which are being published for the first time. The other 10 have been published at other venues and formats over the last eight years. It is an eclectic collection, lacking a unifying theme, save the Civil War itself. Chapter One’s title is the subtitle to the book. As evidence that it does still matter, McPherson principally cites the 30 million viewers who watched the eleven hour documentary produced by Ken Burns in 1990, along with the significant number of Civil War re-enactors who fight mock battles today. He goes on to cite the on-going conflict among the various forms of liberty and freedom, specifically defining “negative” and “positive” liberty.

A word of caution: two of the earlier essays reek of academic in-fighting. Specifically, McPherson takes on Yale Professor Harry Stout, and the varying concepts of a “just war.” For a very long time I’ve found such sentences utterly maddening: “Discrimination separates combatants from non-combatants – the former are a legitimate target but the latter are not, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF “COLLATERAL DAMAGE” in which noncombatants are unintentionally killed or wounded or their property destroyed.” (Emphasis, by capitalization, is added.) McPherson also takes on fellow Pulitzer Prize winner, and academic, Mark E. Neely, for statements such as “The American civil war was, if anything, remarkable for its traditional restraint.” The author might have quite legitimate points in these two essays, but in fairness, it would force one to read the other’s works, which might be too much for a non-academic who also wants to obtain a better understanding of other wars, not to mention other societal issues.

I found the other essays much more satisfactory, in that they illuminated other aspects of the American Civil War that were not included in Catton’s account: for example, the essay on the American Navy and British (as well as French) neutrality. McPherson utilized the capture of the British packet steamer “Trent,” along with two leaders of the Confederacy, James Mason and John Slidell by US naval captain Charles Wilkes to describe the “near miss” of either Britain or France recognizing the Confederacy. In another essay McPherson rendered straightforward accounts of the success of Admiral Farragut, and contrasted it with the failure of Admiral Dupont in Charleston harbor. In yet a separate essay, the author discusses the issue of “Lincoln freeing the slaves.” Rightly, I feel, later scholarship, led by scholars such as Barbara Fields have emphasized that in many ways it was the slaves that had freed themselves, by walking to the lines of the Union Army.

As a closing counterpoint to McPherson’s thesis expressed in his subtitle, as a non-academic, in the 1970’s, I would be an informal tour guide to various friends visiting Atlanta. The enormous monolith to the east of the city, “Stone Mountain,” was on “the tour,” and would often feature a hike to the top. After more than half a century of work, the engraving of three horsemen into the side of the mountain had recently been finished. The inevitable question from my guests: Who are they? The deadpan response: Sherman, Grant and McClellan. Not one of a fair statistical sample of 50 “educated Americans” ever challenged me as to why there might be a memorial to the man who burned Atlanta to the ground. (Note: the three are Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and “Stonewall” Jackson.)

Alas, for virtually all the wars that America has fought, all too quickly they move into the rear view mirror, competing with the Peloponnesian Wars as to relevance. 4-stars for McPherson’s collection of essays.

[Note: Originally posted on January 05, 2015 via the Vine program; reposted on August 12, 2017]

Excerpts from the review on StrategyPage:

'In his preface to this collection of some of his articles, James M. McPherson, one of the leading authorities on our country’s defining and most damaging episode, offers a welcome and much-needed challenge to the rigidity displayed by some accounts of that conflict: “I welcome disagreement and dialogue, for that is how scholarship and understanding advance.”

'In an essay on how freedom came to those in slavery, McPherson notes that Lincoln had “never understood or supported” abolition, but that as the enslaved liberated themselves, they forced his hand. He also accurately observes that “no one deserved more credit for the victory than Abraham Lincoln.” An essay titled “Lincoln, Slavery and Freedmen” describes how Maj. Gen. John C. Frémont’s proclamation of emancipation on August 30, 1861 in Missouri was rejected, and why, just three months later, Lincoln would, in his State of the Union address, indicate that confiscated slaves would become free. Also how a year later Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and, after Appomattox, called for limited Black suffrage.

'n summary, despite some quibbles, The War That Forged a Nation contains a wealth of oft-overlooked information and solid conclusions concerning many salient facets of the American Civil War. It is highly recommended.

For the full review, see StrategyPage.

Anyone that gave any real attention to studying the American Civil War has, undoubtedly, run into one of James McPherson's arsenal of books whether Battlecry of Freedom or Tried by War. He IS the authority on the subject, one of which I've had to pleasure to listen to during his lecture tour a few years back.

However, in The War That Forged a Nation, McPherson takes an approach I've yet to see him do; compile and publish a list of essays. McPherson collects several fascinating essays to address the question why the American Civil War still matters, some of which seem to contradict each other, and presents them to the reader with some thoughts of his own. This novel approach by McPherson stunned and yet fascinated me into reading this book with great interest. Like anything else with McPherson's name on it I got a challenging and yet very engaging if not rewarding read on new aspects of the American Civil War. Granted, the whole question of "why the American Civil War still matters" does not seem to be adequately answered, I still feel as though the read was well worth the time.

If anything, McPherson should remove the subtitle and this book would be another great addition to his already extensive list of impressive accolades. A great read!

“As they once asserted that true liberty implied the right of one man to hold another man as his slave, they will tell you now that they are no longer true freemen in their States because…they can no longer deprive other men of their rights.” Sen. Carl Shurz of Missouri
I received this book through a Goodreads Giveaway. James McPherson is the Pulitzer Prize winning author of Battle Cry of Freedom. This book is a collection of twelve essays that he wrote for various publications, only a few for this book only.
I especially liked his essay on Lincoln as a Wartime President and the one on Civil Rights continuing after the War until today.
This is a very timely book. Our country is divided over the same issues today. We have made much progress, but we also have not resolved issues on state’s rights and federal law.
I highly recommend this book for a chance to think over these problems and try to come up with solutions that we all can live with today.

Moore: At the beginning of your book, you mention the spectacular success of the PBS documentary on the Civil War by Ken Burns. Recently, I heard Civil War historian, Gary Gallagher, level some criticism about that documentary. As you well know, other historians have also weighed in with their own concerns. What are your thoughts about the portrayal of the Civil War found in that documentary?

McPherson: I also have a couple of criticisms of the Ken Burns documentary, but they are not necessarily the same as those by some of my colleagues. The narrative script had a substantial number of minor factual errors--no single one of them would have merited criticism, but the cumulative effect marred the presentation. Ken should have submitted the script to a careful reading by a couple of Civil War scholars. Secondly, some of the photographs did not illustrate the particular events being described by the narrative--they were of another event or scene entirely. Only those who were familiar with the photographs would have picked up on this, but these (relatively few) cases also were jarring.

At the same time, however, I think some of the criticisms canceled each other out: some southerners found it too "pro-Northern"; others found it "too Southern." Some found that it emphasized slavery too strongly; others that it paid too little attention to slavery as an issue that caused the war and that the war had to address. Another criticism is that it largely ignored Reconstruction, and focused instead in the final episode on postwar reconciliation between veterans of the blue and gray. I don't agree with these criticisms--the purpose of the series was to present to a large television audience, only a fraction of which was greatly knowledgeable about the Civil War, the story of that titanic and momentous conflict. The series succeeded spectacularly in achieving that purpose. It aroused the interest of millions of viewers, many of whom went on to learn more about the war by reading books and articles, visiting battlefields, and the like. This in itself was a great boon to Civil War studies.

Moore: What is the significance of the “United States” going from a plural noun to a singular one?

McPherson: Before the war, the words "United States" were usually construed as a plural noun. Local and state governments touched the lives of the average person much more closely than the national government; the identity and allegiance of most people was to their state or region more than to the nation. The U.S. was a rather loose federation of states; the Bill of Rights was a restraint on the powers of the national government in favor of state and individual rights. Nationalism existed, as was proved in the crisis of 1861, but the experience of war greatly strengthened it. The North went to war in 1861 to preserve the Union, but came out of the war as a unified Nation in which the national government was far more powerful in 1865 than it had been four years earlier. In the generation after the war the United States was (not were) on its (not their) way to becoming a world power.

Moore: Did both the North and South believe themselves to be following the direction of the Founding Fathers of our country?

McPherson: Both the Union and Confederacy wrapped themselves in the mantle of 1776 and 1787, and professed to be fighting for the ideals and institutions established by the Founding Fathers. Just as the Revolutionaries of 1776 claimed to be seceding from the tyranny of the British crown and Parliament, the Southern disunionists of 1860-1861 claimed to be seceding from the potential tyranny of a federal government under Abraham Lincoln and his party. But Lincoln and the Northern people fought to preserve the creation of the American republic from dismemberment and ruin, and therefore to preserve the legacy of 1776. Confederates claimed to fight for the Constitution of 1787 with its protection of slavery and state rights; Northerners professed to fight to defend that Constitution from the destruction that would be the result of the breaking up of the Union that the Constitution had created.

Moore: Andrew Delbanco of Columbia has famously said that Americans believed in the providence of God before the Civil War and then in luck as they surveyed the war’s aftermath. Seeing the scale of carnage rattled many people. How much does the Civil War still shape the American consciousness about God and country?

McPherson: During the war, most people on each side believed that God was on their side. Confederate defeat shook this faith in the South, to be sure, but the emergence of a "Lost Cause" mentality in the decades after the war which championed the idea that the Confederacy had fought nobly for the right even though they were overpowered by the Godless North helped reconcile them to defeat. In the North, victory reinforced their faith the righteousness of their cause; the continuing popularity of Julia Ward Howe's "Battle Hymn of the Republic" has sustained that conviction right on down to the present. Lincoln famously argued that God had his own purposes in the war, of which the most important was to punish all white Americans, Northern as well as Southern, for the sin of slavery. As Lincoln himself acknowledged, that was not a popular idea then, and perhaps is not popular today, but the recognition that the war purged the nation of the guilt of slavery that had made a mockery of its claim to be "the land of the free" has helped to inspire American nationalism ever since the war.

Moore: My own marginalia by your discussion of McClellan’s leadership is “presumption, paranoia, and pride.” If my three p’s are somewhat accurate, could we say that Grant is somewhat of the antithesis to McClellan?

McPherson: The notion that Grant's personality and leadership were the opposite of McClellan's "presumption, paranoia, and pride" is an excellent one. In all of these respects, Grant indeed was the opposite of McClellan. He worked his way up from colonel of an Illinois regiment to general in chief of the United States armies step by step, earning these promotions by achievement rather than favor. He never expressed jealousy of fellow officers or criticism of his superiors in the paranoiac manner that McClellan did, and he was modest about his success in contrast to McClellan's exaggerations of his limited successes and boasting (in letters to his wife) about them, while he blamed others for his failures while Grant took responsibility for decisions (as at Cold Harbor) that resulted in failures.

Moore: Lincoln evokes strong emotions among Americans. Opinions about him range from our greatest president to characterizations bordering on the demonic. How high do you rank Lincoln’s presidency and why?

McPherson: I would rank Lincoln's presidency as the most important in American history, or at the least equally important with George Washington's. Washington's leadership launched the nation; Lincoln's saved it from dissolution and purged it of the curse of slavery that Washington and the other Founders had been unable to eliminate from their new nation. Much of the criticism of Lincoln has focused on his alleged violations of civil liberties during the war, but in fact these violations were considerably less than those of the Woodrow Wilson administration during World War I and the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration during World War II, even though the dangers from internal dissension in a civil war were greater than those during foreign wars. Lincoln managed to lead the nation through a crisis that preserved its national integrity and ended slavery, and did so in a manner that also preserved democratic institutions.

Moore: Much has been written about the Civil War. What are a few areas (people, ideas, or events) that have not been well covered?

McPherson: So much has been written about the Civil War that it is hard to identify areas or individuals that have not been well covered. Two areas that have received some treatment, but would profit from more are the environmental impact of the war and the story of refugees in the South. How serious was deforestation of large parts of Virginia, for example, or the marching, camping, fighting, and marauding of armies over thousands of square miles of farmland and woodlands? How long did it take the environment to recover? With respect to refugees, how many people were uprooted by the war? How many families left home to escape the ravages of war? How many of them died? What about slaves fleeing their homes in search of freedom? Is it possible to estimate the numbers of refugees, black as well as white, during the war? What about mortality among them? We know something about the mortality of blacks in contraband camps, but what about Southern whites who took to the roads? The current focus on refugees fleeing the Middle East and Africa suggests that a more intensive study of refugees during the chaos of war in 1861 to 1865 might add an important dimension to our understanding of the war.

I find history fascinating. American history is no exception, and as an American, I feel I should do more to learn about the events and people of the past that have shaped the United States of America.

“The War That Forged a Nation: Why the Civil War Still Matters” is a great read. However, this is qualified praise, as I didn't feel JM did a good enough job of presenting "why the civil war still matters". I felt it was incumbent upon me as a reader to intuit how the past informs the present.

I wish more exposure was given to how the 1860s paralleled the 1960s. It was so interesting to know that the Reconstruction efforts after the Civil War has its descendant in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. That is, it’s not enough that the country promulgated laws (14th Amendment and 15th Amendment to the Constitution) to protect former slaves and accord them rights as U.S. citizens, those laws had to be enforced for years, even decades afterwards to be effective. So too the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 needed federal action to become de facto laws, not just de jure laws.

Another facet of American history I thought quite illuminating was the stir caused by California’s admission into the Union (as in USA, not the Northern faction of the US Civil War). As a Californian, I had no idea the extent to which pro-slavery sentiments were expressed and promoted. Almost everyone knows of the California Gold Rush (the ‘49ers), but I don’t think it’s widely known that this singular event is what kept California from being admitted into the Union as a slave state. As shown by McPherson, the great influx of 49ers did not want slavery to compete with their claims to possible golden riches. They effectively agitated to keep California a slave-free state, thus the pro-slavery camps in the United States Congress were forced to look to other potential incoming states to redress the balance between the number of pro- and anti-slave states.

McPherson writes a well researched book, with good prose and fine narration. He smartly steers clear of “acadamese” but without dumbing down the subject of the book. The casual reader can easily read this book because it doesn’t get bogged down in minutiae, or become a litany of names and dates. (Although the book does contain a plethora of footnotes, as it rightly should, since source material must be cited).

This does not mean however, that McPherson is not given to an historian’s tendency to meander into sidebars. For example, I felt the chapter titled “Just War” was unnecessary. This chapter takes a close look at another historian’s work [“Upon the Altar of the Nation: A Moral History of the Civil War”], specifically the argument as to whether or not the US Civil War can be considered a “just war” and if so, which side – the North or the South – holds the moral high ground in this war. As stated, I didn’t think this side trip was necessary in a book aiming to express why a war fought over a century ago still matters in American society today. To my mind, why the Civil War needed or didn’t need to be fought does nothing to change the fact that it did occur, and the country was changed as a result of it.

So too I felt the chapter discussing the savagery and cruelty the two forces perpetrated on each other was an unnecessary sidebar. Perhaps the author’s aim was to set straight the notion that real attempts were made to protect non-combatants (women, children, elderly, infirm) and property that served no useful war purposes, but here again, I read the book to see how this devastating war still has an impact on today’s America; we know that wars fought today are done in accordance with certain laws and treaties (Geneva Convention for example) that proscribe the manner of warfare. For me, there was no need to spend an entire chapter showing how or how not (and to what extent) both sides perpetrated atrocities on each other. Thus, this was yet another bit of filler to what is an otherwise good book.

There is one argument McPherson brought forth that I wish he had expounded on: the extent to which the slaves themselves were “the prime movers in securing their own liberty”. That is, history places too much emphasis on the Union Army, or the Emancipation Proclamation, or other actions of Congress and President Lincoln in securing freedom for slaves. Self-emancipation – the initiative of slaves to secure their own freedom by running away came to be seen by historians as co-equal in the narrative of how slaves secured their freedom. Acts of Congress, Lincoln and the Union Army were viewed as confirmation, as official validation of something the slaves themselves initiated. For me, this was analogous to the civil rights period of the 1960s. People of color agitated for change to laws and society, and in time, they secured those changes. It was not just one or the other, but both were necessary to truly effect changes in America.

One point I wish to emphasize is the parallel between Lincoln’s gradual moves to end slavery versus the gradual rights for the LGBT community seen in recent years. McPherson’s book does a great job showing the President leading the people (and Congress) to make the abolition of slavery a central tenet of the war. This is in contrast to LGBT issues where the public and activists have led the politicians on granting greater rights to this community. It’s just so interesting living in this modern age and seeing some of the same arguments that were used to agitate for abolition now being re-used in the fight to accord more rights to the LGBT community. Specifically, allusions to America's founding documents - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (abolition invoked the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” while gay marriage invoked the rights accorded by the 14th Amendment). In this way, the thorny issues could be separated. The Bill of Rights was used to separate racial prejudice against blacks from the actual consideration of the abolition of slavery. In our present times, the US Constitution was used to separate moral repugnance of homosexuality from the rights gay people as people should be afforded in American society.

Another comparison I wish to highlight is a facet of Lincoln presented in this book vis-à-vis our modern times, is that of the President as Commander in Chief. In Lincoln’s time, he had scant military training/background, but emerged as one of America’s greatest ever Commanders in Chief. As McPherson states in Chapter 9, “[Lincoln] enunciated a clear national policy, and through trial and error evolved national and military strategies to achieve it.” Contrast this with the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. For the latter men, future historians will have to debate the effectiveness of each man and his actions in the Wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. But, based on present history, it doesn’t look good. Both Bush and Obama will not likely been seen as great CICs overseeing national strategies/policies to bring freedom to the peoples of the Middle East (or whatever the rationale du jour is for these wars). But perhaps I’m painting too broad a brush the failures of these 21st century presidents. The contrasts between a domestic war in the 19th century and 21st century warfare in Asia are too numerous to list. It is perhaps enough to suggest that whatever failings future historians will assign to Bush and Obama as regards the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, their actions as Commander in Chief were not the overriding reason for the wars’ failures.

Up to now, my review has centered on why the US Civil War still resonates in American society. But, I close this review by saying that McPherson brings up a point not often mentioned regarding the US Civil War – its impact on the rest of the world. McPherson posits that in the 19th century, much of the world was ruled by kings, or emperors, or despots. America, in stark contrast, experienced almost one century of democratic republicanism. If the American “experiment” in democracy were to continue, it would give hope to oppressed and disenfranchised peoples all over the world. Therefore, to some extent, monarchies and despotic regimes hoped the Confederacy would prevail so as to prove that a democratic republic was unworkable. [Indeed, McPherson illustrated that some European countries had their own forms of democracy which failed.] Partly, it was those undemocractic countries’ repugnance of slavery that prevented them from wholeheartedly and proactively endorsing the Confederacy. In the 20th century, we saw the flowering of democracy (or at least the end of formal colonialism in many parts of the world) in almost all corners of the planet. Not to toot our own horns too much, but I feel this is in some small measure the result of the example of the USA as a successful democracy, which was forged in the blood, sweat and tears of the civil war. How might the US and the world be different today, had not the Union Army prevailed lo those many, many years ago?

ETA: I just found out this book is in fact a collection of essays. Thus, the "sidebars" as I called them now make sense, and I withdraw my negative reaction to their inclusion in this work.

James McPherson's new book, "The War that Forged a Nation: Why the Civil War Still Matters" (2015) gave me a sense of deja vu. McPherson is America's premiere Civil War historian, and scholars and lay readers continue to learn from his many books. One of McPherson's earlier books, "This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War", consists, as does this new book, of a collection of essays. I titled my the store review of the earlier book, "Why the Civil War Matters", and that phrase essentially appears in the title of this new collection and provides its theme.

This new book includes twelve essays all but one of which have been previously published. The only essay previously unpublished, "Why the Civil War Still Matters" offers an overview of the changes the Civil War brought to the United States and to American life together with a short autobiographical section discussing how the study of the Civil War became McPherson's life work. Another of the book's essay's, "Lincoln's Legacy for Our Time" also discusses the broad significance of the Civil War through the actions of Lincoln.

The remaining ten essays in the book each present a more particular aspect of the Civil War than a broad overview of why the War continues to matter. Each essay, however, tends to contribute to that showing. One of the best of the essays is "Mexico, California, and the Coming of the Civil War" in which McPherson offers fresh insights into the War with Mexico and the settlement and statehood of California and the role they played in the conflict. The volume's final essay, "War and Peace in the Post-Civil War South" briefly examines the violence of the Reconstruction years and the lengthy delay in securing the rights to African Americans promised by the Civil War Amendments.

Of the remaining nine essays, two, "A Just War?" and "Death and Destruction in the Civil War" discuss the violent, brutal nature of the conflict. Many recent scholars focus on the death and destruction of the Civil War as its primary legacy. McPherson disagrees in part and emphasizes instead the War's success in unifying the nation, an accomplishment that is too little appreciated and cannot be over-emphasized, and in freeing the United States from slavery. The volume includes two essays on the importance of the navy, the second of which offers an excellent summary of the physical and moral courage of Admiral David Farragut. An essay, "How did Freedom Come?" discusses the important role played by both the Union Army and the slaves themselves in securing freedom. And the remaining three essays describe Lincoln's role in the war, with an emphasis on his role as military role as commander in chief, including his relationships in the first half of the war with General George McClellan.

McPherson's essays are well-written, obviously deeply informed, and show measured judgment about the War. The essays also display a commendable willingness to learn from and a generosity of spirit to other scholars. Many of the essays originally were extended book reviews, and I learned from McPherson's comments on recent studies such as David Blight's "A Slave No More", Harry Stout's "Upon the Altar of the Nation: A Moral History of the Civil War" , David Goldfield's "America Aflame", and Drew Faust's "This Republic of Suffering: Death and the Civil War" among other works. The book shows the breadth of scholarship and controversy the Civil War continues to inspire.

The essays in this volume may be read independently of each other. Taken together, they do not fully cohere. The book seemed slightly warmed-over. Still it is good to have these previously published occasional essays of McPherson gathered together in one place. There is a great deal to be learned from these essays by those with a serious interest in the American Civil War.

Robin Friedman

Oxford University Press presents an interesting take on the American Civil War. It is an examination behind the culture of the war and how it projects itself forward to the present. The only problem is the answer is the questions proposed is subtle (academic book remember) and often left open for discussion and interpretation. (Thus, the four-stars)

The book is a compilation of various previously published articles. As a result it's not exactly a "single thought" book. Lots of research and thought has gone into this scholarly argument. As a result the argumentative flavor may not be to everyone's liking or agreement. (Thus, the four-stars)

I'm not a Civil War buff but I've always understood Lincoln as having completely changed the USA significantly shifting power away from the people and states toward the federal government. The chapter on "positive" and "negative" liberty is an interesting twist on that idea. So was the "total war" discussion.

The thought that "religion makes soldiers brave" and the Civil War's connection to the Second Great Awakening will be a fire starter for many people. The idea that BOTH sides claimed God's favor on themselves and a curse on the enemy should give us pause for thought. Abraham Lincoln's assessment on this seems to be the wisdom McPherson lands on.

The book extends the ideas surrounding the American Civil war into the Mexican-American war and even beyond. The roll of the Union Navy is often undervalued, McPherson argues for a good look into it's importance. The emergence of the President as the "commander-in-chief" of the military (with the ability to wage war without Congress' consent) is traced. The theory of the "just war" is examined and expanded (for debate's sake). The roll of England and France is detailed, giving us pause for how close the Union came to possibly loosing the war. Lincoln decided the Union could not fight two wars at the same time.

Over all this is a very interesting and fascinating book. My guess is this will spark a lot of discussion because McPherson is not kind to those he calls, "revisionists" (which seems to be the trend in historical studies).

I have mixed feelings on rating this collection of essays. I always enjoy McPherson's writing, and the essay format allows him to focus, in detail, on specific topics which are sometimes not always well-explored (and also allows the reader to pick & choose what parts of the collection to read). It is always fun to watch a respected historian cross swords with his peers, as McPherson does frequently in these essays. In a full-length book, this doesn't often happen, unless the reader ventures into the endnotes section of the book, which might include commentary by the author.

All this having been said, however, I am unconvinced that the single unifying thread of "Why the Civil War Still Matters" can truly be found in these essays. With some of the essays, it is self-evident. With some (such as the essay dealing with the US invasion of Mexico), it is easy to draw some parallels with some of the modern-day events. But then there are the head-scratchers, like the essay on Admirals Farragut and Du Pont. Really? The fact that Farragut was bold, but Du Pont was a Nervous Nellie is relevant to the modern-day United States as we understand it? It was an interesting study, but beyond that, I am unable to see the application as it pertains to the "still mattering" argument.

Also, anyone who has read McPherson's work thoroughly (and it is hard to imagine any student of the American Civil War who hasn't) will recognize definite themes from earlier works. He has updated some of these essays and discusses some of the more recent scholarship, and this is where I found the collection to be the most useful. But it is quite reasonable that some more erudite readers might recognize this collection as being nothing more than old wine in new bottles. This is very much a "your mileage may vary" collection.

The subtitle “Why the Civil War Still Matters” is a poor one, likely a marketing decision from Oxford University Press. Only the first chapter – the only previously unpublished essay – and the last directly address that topic. (However, one could argue they are worth the price of admission.) The rest are just a motley collection of essays that are simply about the war and don’t have much association with the subtitle, or with each other for that matter. For instance, other chapters have McPherson waxing philosophically on such disparate topics as the Mexican War, British neutrality, and comparison of the two admirals Du Pont and Farragut.

Some of “The War That Forged a Nation” feels like rehash, but not in a bad way. Maybe “revisit” is a better word. Since I had previously read McPherson’s “This Mighty Scourge” – which is a similarly structured book of essays – and “Tried by War”, it stands to reason that the material would be familiar. Also, some information is repeated between essays, which also stands to reason as the essays were written at different times for different purposes.

The book may also feel familiar because as he did in “Scourge”, McPherson comments on, adds to, provides supporting and counter opinions to the work of other authors. Two of those I have read: Faust’s “This Republic of Suffering” and Foner’s “The Fiery Trial”. I really enjoy getting McPherson’s take on the ideas presented by peers – particularly when I know the books.

Mistitled books are a pet peeve of mine. I wished they had grouped the essays by themes like with "Scourge" and provided more of a structured experience. Yet, while it’s not the best McPherson book I have consumed and nor is it very cohesive, it is still good.

McPherson, the Pulitzer-prize winning historian, was drawn into the study of the Civil War by living through the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

This book is a delightful, readable overview of the Civil War, filled with insightful stories, dialogue, and commentary by other leading historians. Relevant topics are covered such as the positive and negative impact of protecting liberty (which hints at the current state of affairs in American culture), international relations, and our role as a model of liberty while being the largest slave-holding country in the world. If the reader would like an excellent over of the Civil War, this book provides a good start to exploring the innumerable details found in countless other sources.

McPherson concludes that while the War was about slavery and the breaking up of the union, the most important results were the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Moving forward, he saw the American Civil Rights movement as the last battle “… to begin the painful process of winning the final fruits of victory in the larger conflict of which the war of 1861-1865 had formed only part.” (p. 169)

However, I know many members of the African-American community today would argue that the fruits of victory have not yet been tasted – and the war is not yet over.

I picked up this book after reading McPherson's amazing "Battle Cry of Freedom". It was another great read on the Civil War. The approach of sharing many short essays, rather than the previous 900 page book was much more to my liking. Each chapter stands on its own and does a great job of getting the reader to think about things that we've sometimes come to take for granted. I highly recommend any book from James McPherson for people interested in broadening their understanding of the Civil War.

James McPherson’s “The War that Forged a Nation” is a brief but cogent summary of the political, sociological, economic and moral factors that led to the American Civil War and its further repercussions up to the present time. Admittedly, I’ve never been a history buff, and frankly had next to no interest in the conduct of the war itself, but I lived for eight years in Alabama from 1966 – 74 (during the height of the Civil Rights movement) where my husband and I taught at the “historically Black” Tuskegee Institute. Then we lived in Georgia from 1978 – 2014 during which time I taught in schools in which African American students were the large majority and my husband Ray worked at Morehouse Medical School. As a result of these events, I inevitably learned a great deal about the prevailing attitudes of white Southerners to what is still referred to as “The Recent Unpleasantness”, and was fully aware of the lingering aspects of poverty, segregation, violence and denial of voting rights that lingered even up to the turn of the Millennium. Therefore, I found McPherson’s analytical essay of extreme value.

Among the sideline discussions in this narrative are some intriguing insights – including a description of President Lincoln and Secretary of State Seward waiting over an hour at General McClellan’s house (when the general was notoriously refusing to pursue the war according to the repeated urgings of the Commander in Chief) while McClellan snubbed his commander completely and sneaked upstairs and went to bed! Another story involved the fist fights and even shoot-outs that sometimes occurred in Congress between Union and Confederate sympathizers. All-in-all, obviously, the disrespect that has occurred between various government factions in recent time is really pretty mild by comparison! The last chapter, titled “War and Peace in the Post-Civil War South” is so clearly accurate based on what I already knew from my Alabama days that I would give this book a five-star rating on that alone. For anyone who really cares about the roots and fruits of slavery in America and the hostilities it generated and still produces, this book is a must-read.

James McPherson's newest book includes twelve essays on various topics linked by the theme "why the Civil War still matters." The first essay shares the title with the book and is perhaps the most relevant to the subtitle. Other essay on the same theme are those related to Lincoln as commander in chief, military-civilian relations, and the lingering legacy of the Reconstruction era. Several of the essays grapple with ideas put forth in books by other authors, such as Harry Stout (Upon the Altar of the Nation) and Mark Neely (on the death toll of the war).McPherson outlines their arguments for the reader who is not familiar with their work and then comments extensively. If one is a regular reader of McPherson's work, there is probably not much surprising here, but it is nice to have this collection that ranges over topics from historiography to debates on naval leadership. I think this book would be very useful in a college course on the war, as the essay would provoke discussion among informed readers.

The Civil War still stretches across the nation, especially those parts upon which it was fought. During the centennial, some were `burned out' on Civil War histories and information and this seemed like a good addition for anyone who has already read much on this subject.
I was looking forward to this book to completely address the question of why the Civil War still matters today. After all, in my family's hometown stands a monument in the middle of the village green to honor those who died in the War of Northern Aggression. This book is interesting, since it contains a collection of essays, but many do not address the question of the tile...Why the Civil War still matters today.

There is an essay on this subject in the beginning, but others are more Civil War history themselves. They are appealing to those who like history but are stories of history itself; Mexico- California and the coming of the Civil War, death and destruction, American navies and British neutrality, the rewards of risk taking admirals, Lincoln- Commander in Chief are all examples of fascinating and interesting history, but they do not answer the question clearly.

This is a good book for those who wish to read some different viewpoints of chronicles of the Civil War.

We re-enact it. We travel to it's battlefields. Entire semester-long classes are taught on it. As a nation, we are fascinated by the Civil War. Why?

That's the question the subtitle of this book poses, and one that the reader expects the book to answer. It does, kind of, in a roundabout way, by looking at the reasons for the Civil War and the changes that came from it. McPherson never really comes right out and say "This is why ...," but the message is still there, and there is nobody more qualified than James McPherson to give that answer.

This book is more of a collection of essays than a cohesive book, and as other reviewers have mentioned would be a great introduction to McPherson's body of work.

The American Civil War ended in 1865 - which is 150 years ago, yet there are still many books and articles being written about it regularly. There are even a handful of monthly magazines that are devoted to that conflict. A fair question to ask is "why?" Why are people still so interested in investigating to reading about a conflict that is so far back in our past? This book was put together by one of today's preeminent military historians who focused his whole career on the Civil War and he attempts to answer the question of why the Civil War still matters?

Over the past fifty years, the author has published regularly on various aspects of the conflict. In this slender volume he pulls together twelve of his more recent articles into book form and adds a short preface to discuss his reasons for putting it together and address the main question posed in the previous paragraph. The title of the book is "The War That Forged a Nation" and that is part of the reason, he believes for the ongoing fascination with the war. The subtitle is "Why the Civil War Still Matters" and that is another reason for pulling together this collection of previously published articles.

Interest in the Civil War is what sparked my life-long interest in Military History as well so I fully understand where the authors is coming from when he poses his question. Just like him, I've come to understand that the Civil War mattered because it fundamentally changed the character of the United States from what it had been for the previous eighty years or so and turned it to a different course, which is the one that we are still on today. While the war was fought to keep the Union indivisible and to eliminate the "peculiar institution" of slavery. Many of the effects of what happened then are still with us now. Such items as the proper role of the Federal government in relationship to the individual States; what is the definition of liberty, and what are the limits on that liberty; race relations; and many more things were defined and a course set as a result of the War and we are still dealing with them today.

If you look over the titles of the twelve articles that were put together into this book you will see that they cover a whole gamut of different topics and there really isn't a single theme that predominates the whole book. There are however some trends. The early essays in the book cover the questions of what makes a just war and which side was more just in this conflict. The answer, not surprisingly is not given as that is something that each person has to determine on their own. The latter part of the book focuses on the person of Abe Lincoln and his role as the Commander in Chief and his interactions with his generals as he gains a better grasp of military matters and makes decisions that resulted in the way the war came to an end. The very tail end of the book points out that this four year period was the most active time period for violent action, but that the battles really started several decades before the War and continued until at least the 1960's in terms of giving Blacks real equality (with the proviso that this issue is still simmering in the background even today - witness the events in Ferguson Missouri recently).

While this book does not shed any significant new light on any of the particular areas it touches upon, it is a nice little volume that will make the reader think about the Civil War and why it still matters. I am not sure how this book fits into my library as it is not topical in any sense. It is a collection of disparate essays and therefore, while I liked the individual essays, I ultimately decided to give this book three stars. It's an interesting read, but not required for the understanding of the war, why it took place, nor for the events that took place during it.

The author does an outstanding job explaining why this is the case while keeping the explanation interesting and compelling. I hope the book gets adopted for high school history classes since it could lead to more informed citizens. For those of us who are considerably older, it still has great value since we all live in a society where we see news stores with origins that can be traced back to the events described in this book.

I was really disappointed. Mr. McPherson had such glowing reviews for his writing, but I couldn't get far into this book. The author's writing in this book is simply circular reasoning. Within the first several pages I was totally frustrated, closed it and put it on a shelf. I doubt I'll ever finish it.
The book was delivered in excellent condition, which was the only thing good about it.

Good read. Very good read.

Interesting, informative and educational, too.

Quite the exception for a book published by an academic press.

The prolific James McPherson is an academician who makes history interesting and relevant.

More history should be taught and shared this way.

If you are the least bit interested in the Civil War and the lasting effect it has today, read this book. It is the book for you.

i felt much of the first chapters were rehashed info but alwsys lively delivered as only McP can do... but the final chapter on Reconstruction sums that era up better that some entire books have done.

A powerful account and perspective of a war that pit brother against brother in a cause that shaped the future course of America! McPherson is correct: The War still matters! I highly recommend it!

For another stirring and powerful account of the War, with letters and accounts from the principals that seem stranger than fiction, I highly recommend Resurrecting Lee and Resurrecting Jefferson Davis.

Why Does The Civil War Still Matter? This Pulitzer Prize winning, well known historian failed to answer the question satisfactorily for me. I found the description of the growth of Lincoln's military savvy to make this book worth the read. However, the majority of the material that makes up this book has been previously published. This always makes me think it is just contractual obligation and not inspired thinking. There is one essay about the Reconstruction but it did not address the the years to date. Why is the racial divide so prevalent in today's society so many decades after the Civil War? Although the nation remains indivisible what have we exactly learned to keep it so? I have read and admired Mr McPherson's previous works this simply did not add to his reputation as a consummate historian.

This is a perfectly fine book on Civil War history, in a general way. However, it has nothing to do with what the title promises. This is just a collection of essays on various aspects of the Civil War. Some of the content has been previously published.
My son, a high school senior, also read the book. He says that besides some information on the navy during the Civil War, there was nothing here that shouldn’t have been learned in high school.

mostly it's about the author justifying his position and comparing it to other historians. I was interested in reading a book with some detail and new insights. This book is more for those highbrow historians and not so much for someone like me who was looking for another history about the Civil War.

Mr. McPherson is an excellent writer and he presents his case well here, but I am not in agreement with many of the conclusions he reaches nor with much of the information used to draw these conclusions. It is not my intention to fight the war all over again but it should be stated that many Southern folks (including myself) do not come to the same understandings that Mr. McPherson has reached.