The Civil War and Reconstruction

I essentially agree with the two previous reviews. The book is largely devoid of the kind of nonsense and PC that one finds in so many other books on the Civil War. The chapter on the illegal, fraud-ridden creation of the state of West Virginia is excellent. I would make one comment about a statement made in one of the reviews, namely, that Randall showed that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Randall proved no such thing because it's utterly false to say the war was fought over slavery. If the war was fought over slavery, then why didn't Lincoln or other Republicans ever offer to stop the war if the South ended slavery? Why was Lincoln's one and only condition for ending the war the repudiation of Southern independence? If you want to know what a war is being fought over, look at the conditions that each side names for ending the war. Not once did any Northhern leader say the North would halt its invasion of the South if the South would end slavery. And the South's only demand to end the war was for the North to halt its invasion and withdraw its armies. The South's position was simple: "Leave us alone and stop trying to force us to rejoin the Union, and naturally the war will be over." The war was fought over Southern independence, not slavery. By late 1864 the South was moving toward ending slavery, yet there was no offer from the North to suspend or end the Northern invasion if the South followed through with an emancipation plan. The few abolitionists who suggested making such an offer were shouted down by their fellow abolitionists. Neither Lincoln nor any other prominent Republican gave the slightest indication that the North would let the South leave in peace if the South abolished slavery. Slavery wasn't the sticking point--Southern independence was.

Students of history would do well to begin their studies of the U.S. Civil War by reading this seminal historical text by renowned historian James Garfield Randall (1881-1953), University of Illinois professor and Lincoln biographer. Released in 1937, "The Civil War and Reconstruction" was revised by Randall's student David Herbert Donald in 1961. This is the book we are dealing with, not the further revised volume outlined in the product description. What distinguishes this work is Randall's keen sense of historical accuracy: Although he had his own predilictions (Abraham Lincoln was his childhood hero and lifelong subject of his scholarship), he separated his early personal views from his assessment of the historical record. Anyone who has ever read books on the Civil War written before Randall's will find enough jingoism, hyperbole and finger pointing to suffice them a lifetime. What Randall aspired to, however, was a more objective and scientific analysis of history. In that, I believe, he has succeeded. Written in an era before political correctness, this book deals with the issue of slavery honestly and forthrightly. Randall looks into the economics of slavery from Colonial times up to the Civil War, and gives a dispassionate sketch of its origins and practices. For example, consider these simple facts: That unlike the pale white indentured servants from the British Isles, who were generally physically ill equiped for working the soil in the hot and humid Southern states, African slaves were much better acclimated to the South's punishing climate, and, in fact, received better treatment than their European counterparts. The reason for this was purely economic, not altruistic: Slaves were owned, and represented a financial investment, whereas indentured servants more or less were leased and were driven hard so that plantation owners could extract every penny of value from them while they could. Yet, when I voiced these facts in a graduate school lecture hall in New York City in the early 1990s, many students glowered at me, and the professor looked like a scared rabbit, and changed the subject immediately. What makes Randall's study of the Civil War most appealing is that although he began his career seeing the Union through rose-colored glasses (given his admiration for Lincoln) one sees that after studying the matter thoroughly, his sympathies often lie with the South, and that he regards Lincoln as a sort of tragic figure, who was torn between holding the Union together and keeping more radical elements of the Republican Congress at bay. This is significant, because it is seldom that scholars admit they are wrong. His thesis, that the Civil War was indeed not inevitable, ought to be carefully studied by purveyors of the two prevailing -- and ignorant -- explanations of the Civil War and Lincoln's place in it. To those Southerners who declare that the Civil War was not about slavery, Randall provides copious evidence to debunk that myt

Professor Donald provides insight into how the collective decisions of the past have led to so many of the problematic circumstances we face as a nation today. Professors Donald, Baker and Holt take the reader back to over twenty years before the beginning of the Civil War and continue through Reconstruction to examine the various factors and angles from which the entire history of the Civil War and Reconstruction is derived. The student of American History has everything needed in one concise volume to gain a working knowledge of the Civil war and Reconstruction era. This work is a well-documented, factual and detailed account of the most trying period of history our nation has seen to date. The work is accurate, comprehensive and concise. No doubt The Civil War and Reconstruction by David H. Donald will maintain a prominent place in any serious historical library for years to come.