Drawn with the Sword: Reflections on the American Civil War by James M. McPherson
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
James M McPherson is the author of the best-selling Battle Cry of Freedom, chronicling the history of the Civil War. This is a wonderful collection of essays on the same subject. These are organized under four headings with a final essay that I thought was worth the price of admission all by itself: “What’s the Matter with History”. The problem actually isn’t history, according to him, but the growing chasm between academic publications in history centered around very specialized questions and written in the arcane language of the discipline, and works for the educated public, increasingly written by journalists rather than academic historians. McPherson, who is an academic historian, describes how his success with Battle Cry undermined, to a certain degree, his academic credibility.
He begins the book with several essays on the origins of the Civil War including his take on southern exceptionalism, the role of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and his counter to the claim that the war was one of northern aggression.
Part Two focuses on the war and its wider impact on American society. He explores our perpetual fascination with the Civil War–why so many re-enactors, why so many books, and why so much continual re-hashing of the history from northern and southern perspectives. He explores the Civil War as a case study in the transition from limited to total war, and the issues of race and class, including the story behind the movie, Glory, which he considers one of the best depictions of the reality of battle among Civil War movies.
Part Three explores “Why the North won” looking at the arguments about why the Confederacy lost, how they almost won and the generalships of Lee and Grant. McPherson would come down on the side of the preponderance of northern military might combined with finally coming up with a group of Generals in Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, who would exploit that might.
Part Four looks at Lincoln, and in many ways defends Lincoln against scholarship that minimizes the role of Lincoln in Emancipation and the defense of the republic.
I’m reminded why I like McPherson–he writes clearly and takes clear positions on historical questions. I’m sure he must have his detractors, but one thing he does not do is hide his conclusions behind arcane language and highly nuanced argument. May his tribe increase among academic historians!