I picked up the book because I'm curious as to why some wars (the American Revolution, the Civil War, and WW2) end cleanly and everyone makes nice afterwords, whereas other wars (various conflicts throughout the middle east, south america, various parts of asia, africa, the balkan states, revolution in mexico, etc) just drag on forever. My pet theory is the CIA. I think our government actively destabilizes other governments. But there's a good chance there's more innocent explanations, and I wanted to read up on how successful peace is formed. The back of this book suggested it would:
I have a general policy with books. At around the 50th page, I stop and evaluate whether or not I want to continue reading. There's just too many good books out there to make it worth reading the bad ones. In one lifetime you'll never read all the truly wonderful books you should, so why waste time and brain cells reading even one that sucks? Typically, by around the 50th page, you can tell whether this one's going to be worth continued investment."One month in 1865 witnessed the frenzied fall of Richmond, a daring last-ditch Southern plan for guerrila warfare, Lee's harrowing retreat, and then, Appomattox. It saw Lincoln's assassination just five days later and a near-successful plot to decapitate the Union government, followed by chaos and coup fears in the North, collapsed negotiations and continued bloodshed in the South, and finally, the start of national reconcilliation.
In the end, April 1865 emerged as not just the tale of the war's denouement, but the story of the making of our nation."
bla bla bla
At page 50, it seemed Winik's April 1865 was just barely getting past the preamble. He'd spent numerous pages on a sloppy but colorful hand-job of Thomas Jefferson. (Jefferson, in case anyone doesn't know, was an intellectual pioneer and a total fucking hypocrit. As a statesman and author he spoke and worked for liberty, while at the same time owning a large stable of enslaved human beings.) Understanding the constitutional dillema of slavery is pivotal to understanding the basis of the civil war, and while he mostly stroked Jefferson, Winik also pointed out the man's foibles and contradictions, so it was more than tolerable.
Winik's writing style was mostly enjoyable, and a google search for reviews spits back many instances of the words "shining" and "masterful". The chapter entitled "March 1865" had just started around the 40th page, so I knew I hadn't even hit the heart of the matter by the time I did my usual analysis at page 50 and decided to keep reading.
What an awful mistake on my part. Thereafter began an at least 50-page (I'm on 107 and it hasn't ended yet) literary blowjob and prostate-massage for Robert E. Lee. Admittedly, General Lee is an interesting figure. He was a pre-war abolitionist, and publicly stood against succession prior to the war, but, when offered command of the Union Army to invade the state his family lived in, he resigned his commission. If Lee had then abstained from war, he would be unimpeachably noble and heroic, but unlike Gandhi, Smedley Butler, or the Dalai Lama, he chose to take up arms. (Some causes are certainly worth fighting for, and even Gandhi said if you're afraid to protest peacefully you should take up arms. Just the same, for a supposedly pro-abolition, anti-succession individual to lead the Confederate army is downright kinky.)
I can certainly see why any history of the civil war needs to devote significant page count to Lee, his conundrum, and his skill. Winik's book, however, just heaps never-ending adoration upon the Confederate commander. Winik absolves Lee of all guilt*. He paints a picture of messiah figure, a Lee who can do no wrong. Even his "sensuous" correspondence with women other than his wife is praised - and he assures us that none of those romances were ever consummated (which could be true for all I know). The many hardships he faced and injuries he endured are enumerated, and in this stoic portrait "he never allowed any of it to slow him down". His part in the death of thousands is colored as a thing he did with great reluctance because Grant forced him in to it*. We are reminded again and again of his heroic and noble character.
Which, I suppose, wouldn't be so bad if he were just doing this for the one guy. Hero-worship is a fairly human trait. I've got several Heroes of my own up on pedestals. Winik, it would seem, has a few hundred thousand personal heroes, and most of them wore confederate grey. As we round page 100 we are told several times that Union losses were at record highs, while again and again rebel losses were half that or less. But then, astoundingly, on page 101 he characterizes Union troops as "murderous" - wouldn't murderous be more aptly applied to both sides, or perhaps the side that was killing twice as many? Instead, two paragraphs later, he reminds us that the rebel lines are made of "old men and shoeless boys" whom we should have sympathy for. It goes on like this, constantly painting the rebels as heroes and the federalists as sociopaths. He lines up the entire Confederate army to metaphorically fellate them in succession.
On page 105 he compares the city of Richmond to Christ. Jefferson Davis's flight from the city, we are told without any sense of irony, is similar in import to Christ's crucifixion.
On 107 he laments the poor aristocrat who's forced to release "$50,000 worth of property in the street and let them go". The slave owner, by the way, gets away on the retreat train. He can't take his slaves with because the whites on the train don't want to make room for blacks. Winik very carefully avoids any moral judgment against the slave-owner, or any one on the train. He almost seems to be implying that the soldier who insists there's no room for slaves on the train is some sort of hero. Like there's some nobility in freeing slaves who are going to be freed by the enemy in less than an hour anyway.
At that point I threw the book down in disgust. Luckily, it was $1.99 at the thrift store, so I'm not wasting much if I decide to dump it. I would like to know how this country managed to piece itself together in 1865. I'd love to understand why some wars drag on in violence and others are followed by extended peace. Must I read such blatant propaganda to learn the secret? I dread what his depiction of John Wilkes Booth must be like - 'dashing actor turned vigilante', 'doomed hero of a doomed cause', or some such pandering drivel.
Faced with the tyranny of the Bush-Cheney administration, I must admit a certain admiration for a generation of people willing to battle against oppressors (real or imagined), but I haven't forgotten that the "noble rebels" were predominantly racists, hypocrits, and oppressors themselves. Jay Winik seems bizarrely willing to overlook that.
*: Specifically, Winik tells us repeatedly how Grant alone was responsible for all those Union deaths. This was popular opinion in newspapers of the era, but that doesn't make it true. Grant was a bastard and a butcher, to be sure, but one man does not wage a war. Those deaths are equally to blame on Lincoln, Davis, Lee, the cabinets and congresses of both factions, the proxy system that let senators and financial barons buy their sons out of the draft, and everyone involved in the slave trade. To single out a few would be overly simplistic. To hold only one side culpable is to miss the lessons of history in their entirety.
Winik tells a story of how, at the battle of Cold Harbor, neither side was willing to call a cease-fire to clear the wounded off the battlefield. He blames Grant's (and certainly not Lee's) stubbornness for this, and neatly sidesteps the fact that since Grant had been charging a fortified position, the bodies in no-man's land were almost entirely Union bodies. Both men were complicit in this game of egos, and Lee stood to gain advantage by dragging the process out till the wounded had died. The Northern press hated Grant for his part in this, that is true. But to absolve Lee of all guilt in this action is deeply dishonest, and/or naive. The Cold Harbor negotiation failure was actually a great (and bloody) success by Lee on the psychological/propaganda front. That much should be obvious to a man with Winik's credentials, writing a book that claims "fresh iconoclastic scholarship" on the cover.
2 comments:
This is a consistent problem with books on alternative views of history. It seems to me that the authors who take on the daunting task of challanging a given orthodoxy often do so out a desire to grind a particular axe.
Sad but too-frequently true.
Post a Comment