April 1865: The Month That Saved America

Rating:
Summary: Inspiring, Informative, and Insightful!
Review: Please let me join the lengthening parade and climb aboard the band wagon. I like this work. As to whether it is merely a pale reflection of Catton, Foote, et al, or if it is a plowing of new ground in Civil War work, only time will tell. I thought it was a bit pricey, though.

Rating:
Summary: A mesmerizing study of the Civil War's end.
Review: Jay Winik has written a penetrating and mesmerizing account of the Civil war's final month. Mr. Winik is a master storyteller who not only tells us what happened but also what might have happened except for some quirk of fate.He shows us how Lee very nearly escaped Grant's final encircling movement and what might have happened if Lee's army had linked up with Joe Johnston' army in North Carolina.He describes the pressures that were brought to bear on Lee to continue the war if need be by waging guerrilla warfare. But Lee rejected this as being something that ''Christian men could never countenance''.But what would have happened if someone like Nathan Bedford Forrest or John Singleton Mosby had been willing to lead such a movement? Winik provides a ready answer with the example of the border slave state of Missouri which by april of 1865 very much resembled Bosnia or Rwanda today.Confederate guerrillas carried out massacres of whole communities and union troops

troops carried out reprisals with equal ferocity.Then there is the matter of Lee's surrender to Grant, one of the greatest and most sublime moments in American history. Why is it that Lee and Davis did not end their days before firing squads like the losers of all other civil wars? But were instead enjoined by General Grant to keep their horses and side arms for the ''spring plowing''.Is it just an accident of fate that at this crucial moment in our history we were blessed with such noble and compassionate leaders as Lincoln, Lee and Grant? As Lincoln said in the final week of His life ''The almighty has His own purposes'' I cannot reccomend this book highly enough. Wheather you are a civil war buff or not you will find reading this book a richly rewarding experience.

Rating:
Summary: Great perspective.
Review: Jay Winik writes with great style and substance from a perspective many may overlook. The United States was an entirely unique experiment in spontaneous self-government, and while the mold may have been cast in 1776-1787, the nation would take many decades to cure. In one crucial month, April, 1865, the as-yet fragile vase could well have cracked and crumbled into dust. Instead, as the author points out, a group of men, including Lincoln, Lee, Grant & Johnston, made careful decisions that would preserve the Nation for posterity. Winik details the deeds and animates the men with great literary light, and one cannot help but marvel at how a second unique event, a true National healing, enveloped the United States as a result of their wisdom.

Rating:
Summary: An amazing month, but did it really "save America?"
Review: Fascinating idea, well written for the most part, but with one major caveat: it's wrong. Or, to put it more precisely, the author, Jay Winik, sets out a bold, even audacious thesis -- that April 1865 was "the month that saved America" - but then fails to prove it. What evidence does Winik present to support his belief that April 1865 was THE turning point in American history? Unfortunately, not much. Basically, Winik argues that: 1) the assassination of President Lincoln, and the close calls for Secretary of State Seward and Vice President Johnson COULD have led - but did not -- both the North and the South into utter chaos, "an orgy of retribution," a bloodbath, or even a resurgence of Confederate resistance; and 2) the South COULD have turned (but, once again, DID NOT) towards endless guerilla warfare (Winik cites such disparate examples as the Afghan mujahedeen vs. the Soviets, the Maccabees vs. the Romans, the Scythians vs. the Persians, and the Spanish vs. Napoleon).

OK, so let's start with argument #1, that Lincoln's assassination could have led to everything unraveling. Sure, theoretically that's POSSIBLE, but what EVIDENCE does Winik provide that it was even somewhat likely? Well, unfortunately, not much. Essentially, Winik argues that the procedures for executive succession upon Presidential death were not very clear-cut, even though over the past century there had been two such occasions (John Tyler on the death of President Harrison in April 1841, and Millard Fillmore on the death of President Taylor in July 1850). However, there is no question that had John Wilkes Booth's conspiracy been fully carried out, with the Vice President (and Secretary of State) assassinated as well, this would have been an EXTREMELY difficult time for the country - as it would be today or any other time. But, as interesting as it might be to think about the "alternative history" possibilities, as a matter of historical FACT Johnson and Seward were NOT assassinated. So, while Winik does have a point that this was a dangerous moment at a delicate time (the winding down of the Civil War), he offers NO evidence of any plots, coup attempts, Southern attempts to take advantage of the turmoil in the North, or really any serious question regarding Vice President Johnson's right to be President (the fact that many influential people didn't like him doesn't prove anything). Bottom line: in my opinion, Winik does not even come close to proving argument #1.

So, how about argument #2, that the South very well could have chosen the path of guerilla warfare? Here, I would say that Winik has an interesting point, and I don't deny that the guerilla warfare option was there, but how PLAUSIBLE was it? Winik seems to belong to the "great man" school of history, arguing that if it weren't for a few people - Lee, Johnston, Grant, Sherman - making key choices at critical junctures - Southern soldiers very well could have taken to the hills. But, besides giving us some interesting information about the potentially enormous damage and chaos that guerilla warfare can inflict, plus a list of "top candidates" to lead such a campaign, Winik never proves that this option was a serious one for the South in April 1865. Sure, there were people in both the North and South who would have preferred the course of more blood and more vengeance over peaceful reunification, but Winik undermines his own argument with his description of the horrific, desperate conditions (both physical and psychological) to which the South had fallen. In my opinion, it would be a lot more accurate to say that by April 1865, the South was utterly shattered, requiring a miraculous, incredible sequence of events for it to continue its fight in any serious way - and then WHAT?!? Also, in my humble opinion, Winik overestimates Lee's ability to singlehandedly rally the South given the horrible devastation it had suffered.

Besides these problems, and they are undoubtedly BIG ones, "April 1865: The Month That Saved America" has a few things going for it. First, Winik has the ability to make you feel like you are "right there" in the shoes of REAL flesh-and-blood people (as opposed to historical icons) as they struggle with things in their control, and also with the many more things over which they have NO (or very little) control. His sketches of key players like William Sherman, U.S. Grant, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Joe Johnston, Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest, John Wilkes Booth, etc. are generally excellent, although not necessarily related to his main thesis. The same can be said regarding Winik's descriptions of historical events like Lee's surrender, Lincoln's assassination, the destruction of Richmond, and many more. And Winik DOES offer an interestingly fresh, broad-view approach to his subject, possibly informed by his experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Finally, Winik is an engaging enough writer, with the major caveat that he tends, for some strange reason (insecurity in his material?), to lapse into exaggeration, clichés, and embarrassing, overly dramatic, potboiler prose - 'Then he waited," "A cold hard rain began to fall," ''Back in Washington, all hell was about to break loose.''). Finally, Winik's main thesis, that April 1865 was a crucial month, IS an interesting one - I just wish that he could have stuck with it, PROVED it, and not rambled away from it at every chance (and there are MANY such chances).

In sum, I believe that the flaws of Jay Winik's book outweigh the positives. It's too bad, because there's no doubt that April 1865 was an extremely eventful, important month in American history, and that Winik is onto something here. But, given all of its flaws, I reluctantly conclude that I cannot enthusiastically recommend this book.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best Civil War books EVER!
Review: I am a long time civil war buff, a practicing doctor, and an avid reader of history. In April 1865 Jay Winik has produced one of the most magnificent books I have ever read: beautifully written, brilliantly conceived, richly insightful, and fresh. It is a MASTERPIECE.

Winik understands that there are brief intervals in history were everything seemed at risk, from war's beginnings-think September 1940, when Hitler was poised to cross the English Channel and only the Royal Air Force could stop him, or August 1914, when the world rumbled toward a war that statesman couldn't prevent, to the ends of wars, think the ongoing horrors of Northern Ireland, or Lebanon, or the Balkans today. Winik ranks in a league with the few gifted historians who tell a compelling story: David McCullough, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Robert Massie, and his powerful narrative and shrewd insights remind me of Barbara Tuchman's magisterial Guns of August. To his credit, Winik is also willing to go against the grain. The superficial view of the Civil War's end is that once Lee agreed to Grant's terms at Appomattox, the war was over. Winik, by helping us see the dynamic events much as the protagonists themselves did, shows just how wrong this is. Between the call of many -including Jefferson Davis, and a number of Robert E. Lee's men, the country could have descended into a destructive guerilla war. After the assassination of Lincoln, retribution and chaos could have been the order of the day. In either case, the reconciliation of North and South could have been hindered and we could have ended like the Northern Irelands of the world.

I don't want to give the rest away. April 1865 is uncommonly and richly textured; it is gripping; it is one of the best books I have ever read. And finally, I should add, this book left me in tears, wanting to read it all over again.

Rating:
Summary: Bloated History
Review: April 1865 is an excellent example of a long magazine piece that has been blown up into a full-length book. I found it tendentious as well as too clever by half. In addition I took great exception to his portrayal of Robert E. Lee as the acme of Civil War generals. Now, if you want to read an excellent book about the Civil War and beyond, try Jean Smith's biography of U.S. Grant. What a great read!

Rating:
Summary: Riveting narratives...you are there!
Review: Winik brings scenes and situations to life with his careful attention to detail-speech mannerisms, exact quotations, firsthand accounts. His biographical sketches of Lee and Grant, Sherman and Johnston, Lincoln and Davis, even the actor-assassin Booth, add dimension to these familiar characters. One is left in awe of the leaders of both sides-Lee in particular-and the vital role they played in steering the country back to unity after its bloodiest struggle.

Winik depicts pivotal events such as the fall of Richmond, the starvation of Lee's army, the vigil around Lincoln's deathbed, with a remarkably lifelike presence. (As Secretary Stanton took charge during the assassination crisis, I was reminded of Al Haig.)

I'd venture to say that even the most well-read Civil War buffs will find something new in Winik's narratives and analysis, especially in his compelling thesis that the end of the Civil War was the beginning of true nationhood for the United States.

Rating:
Summary: April 1865, The Month That Saved America
Review: I first heard of this magnificent book when the author was interviewed on NPR...as I listened I realized that tears were running down my cheeks, I was THAT moved. I bought the book that day, and it is one the the best books I have ever read on anything, but a true standout regarding the Civil War. It goes to the heart and head and reminds us of from whence we came, and also causes a great longing for leaders that are that devoted to what this country means. I have recommended this book so so many people. It will be one I read yearly to remember how fortunate we are to have had such wonderful and terrible beginnings...my thanks to Mr Winek.

Rating:
Summary: The Best
Review: Jay Winik has written what may be the best book on the Civil War. He brings people and events into focus and places them under a microscope. He begins to ask knew questions about these elements and their effects on the overall conflict based on how all these elements affected each other. He brings a whole knew insight into what this war really meant from its beginning to it end. The last month was so crutial that it really makes you wonder what could have happened if just a few events happened differently. Keep it on your bed-side table.

Rating:
Summary: A lawyer's summation for a guilty client.
Review: Good idea, some good information, at times good dramatic pacing. But Winik has a bee in his bonnet and his arguments about the likelihood of guerilla warfare after Appomatox are paper-thin. "Critics and ethicists today argue that his scorched-earth policies violated all the strictures of . . . justice in warfare," he says of Sherman. His fawning over Jeff Davis is extraordinary. His language is often bombastic. Dresses in new clothes some of the old ideas - the war was really about states' rights, the slaves were treated benignly, the South had a noble heritage. History taken from primary sources belies these concepts. Argues the case, doesn't change the verdict.