The American Civil War: A Military History

An excellent book. I find his facts and method of presenting them to be a new look at a subject I have read a great deal about.

Granted there are more than a few typos, and some outright errors, but as the history bloggers are buzzing, it does appear that friends and students of James McPherson are trying to discredit this marvelous book. As I understand this "inside baseball" skull-duggery, McPherson is wildly protective of his "Battle Cry of Freedom" as the only one-volume history of the Civil War worth buying (and perhaps as his retirement cash cow). How else to explain his allowing the release of a superfluous illustrated version of his masterpiece to muscle out Ken Burns's fine illustrated history. And how else to explain why he went after Keegan's book so ungraciously in the NY Times Book Review. McPherson may be a great authority on the Civil War as social history, and he may be credited as an activist in the service of battlefield preservation, but he has no real background as a military historian, relying entirely on the work of great scholars like Keegan to explain war to him. This debt and lack of authority, however, has never prevented him from presenting himself as America's foremost authority on what was, however much a social and political phenomenon, ultimately...a war. Keegan's book offers a sophisticated yet accessible reading of the war from the point of view of an ultimate authority on warfare. That authority allows Keegan to discourse with great originality on how the Civil War fits into military history: how it was shaped by wars fought before and how it would shape wars fought since, especially the First World War. Those who don't find military history engrossing per se--as a former army brat, I'm biased by the passion my father instilled in me-- may find Keegan's ingeniously detailed battle narratives a bit of a slog at times, but that's no fault of the book, which plainly states it is a military history, whose invaluable contribution, despite a few errors, any serious scholar of the Civil War should be ready to acknowledge. It's a pity that a man with as much to offer as Prof. McPherson is not one of them.

John Keegan needs no introduction to followers of military history, with some 19 books to his credit. Keegan brings the perspective of an English military historian to the American Civil War, which does lend this history a rather unique flavor. One surprising element is the number of mostly small errors in the book. Some are inexplicable, such as mistakenly attributing desegregation of the American military to Dwight Eisenhower. In fact, it was his predecessor, President Harry Truman, who first ordered desegregation of the military. Eisenhower did pursue the issue during his Presidency as well as enforcing the Supreme Court's decision. In short, Keegan was partially correct in a way, but wrong on the major point. Keegan also errs in the combat deaths of the Civil War and American combat deaths in WWII. These are small errors, to be sure, but one wonders how they made it through both the writing and editing process. There isn't much that hasn't been already said about the day-to-day history of the Civil War and most of the first 15 chapters are a retelling of what is already familiar to most military buffs. There is the occasional insight that only a historian of Keegan's caliber would recognize, but for the most part, it is well-trod territory. Keegan uses a number of British terms and colloquialisms which occasionally slow down the reader, but again this is not a major issue. In the first 250 pages or so, Keegan pretty well lays out all the major aspects of the American Civil War. In the last chapters, about 70 pages, Keegan comes fully into his own as he did in "The Face Of Battle". Here Keegan examines why the soldiers on both sides kept fighting despite casualty rates running around 30%. He points out the differences between the Civil War and all the wars before it, which is a fascinating exposition. His discussion of the strategy - or lack thereof - on the parts of North and South is among the very best I've seen. One of his points which I've never seen addressed in quite the same way is that the Civil War was a war of almost continuous battles, about 10,000 of them. This marked a significant departure from the Napoleonic doctrine of the time that sought great battle that would end the war. Keegan also points out that the Civil War was the most important ideological war in history and his discussion is quite illuminating. Overall, the last six chapters take a pretty good history and turn it into a superb and unique history of the American Civil War. There are more definitive histories, but Keegan's merits a place on the military history buff's bookshelf because of Keegan's singular perspective. Jerry

Keegan takes a bird's eye (Brit's eye?) and militarily-focussed view of our Civil War, which I found illuminating -- looking at an old story from a new angle can often yield new insights, even if the story doesn't change. Having just finished two Civil War classics -- Foote and McPherson -- I wondered if this book would be repetitive. As a long-term Keegan fan, however, I forged ahead, and am glad I did. Keegan's broad military focus provides strategic insights that don't always emerge in more detailed, or more political, accounts. Also, putting the War in the context of previous European wars (and European wars to come) added a dimension. And, as usual, Keegan writes so well that the book is a joy to read.