Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing and Poorly Written
Review: I was very disappointed in this book. For readers not very familiar with this period in American history, maybe there are surprises here. But Winik covers no new ground (I'm not sure there is any new ground left in terms of books on the Civil War). I can't imagine people like me who have already read a lot about the Civil War would find any of this to be interesting. He's not a very good writer, either. He's pompous and pretentious at times--and at other times he just writes badly. For example, at one point he talks about "decapitating the seat of government." How does one decapitate (literally, remove the head from) a seat? He gets certain historical facts wrong as well. I know this was a best seller and people just drool over it, but, really, it's not a very good book. If you want to learn about this particular time in our history, you can do a lot better.
Rating: 
Summary: Now I know why ordinary American are ignorant of history
Review: If Mr. Winik is one of the finest history writers we have, he has probably contributed more to turning people away from our country's past than anyone else. Lincoln is shot, the plot against the Union government unfolds, and we are treated to an over-20 page digression on Lincoln's life. Listen, Jay, if you're gonna include this, it should have been 150 pages ago. A 142 word sentence (p 329-330) trying to describe Jefferson Davis. 142 words, for crying out loud. And this probably isn't even the longest sentence. It even includes the phrase "he was ultimately a tragic, even confused creature of historical circumstance . . ." After I read this, I had to check to see if the book hadn't started off with "It was a dark and stormy night". What is a "seething decade", anyway (p. 6)? And what exactly does Mr. Winik mean when he says that Robert E. Lee is "passionate with his loved ones"? Do I really have to know this to understand what happened in April 1865? Does he really know this? Within the first 50 pages, I was hoping that John Wilkes Booth's bullet would get Winik, not Lincoln. The only thing this book achieves is being overrated.
Rating: 
Summary: excellent Civil War/historical analysis
Review: This is less a straight history of the events and people of April 1865 than it is an interpretive analysis of their place in American history. Winik reflects on history overall, not just American, and in civil wars in particular to argue that what happened in April 1865 made the United States unique; this month was pivotal in reuniting a single nation devoid of the lingering strifes that plague most countries stricken with civil war. Of course, Winik is looking back on this with about 140 years of hindsight. That's not to say that there wasn't discord after the Civil War - certainly there was much of it, and Reconstruction was an extremely difficult period for the nation as a whole and for the South especially; the civil rights ramifications took a long time to work out, and our nation still faces questions about race and equality even today. What Winik is saying is that April 1865 could have gone a lot differently: rather than surrender, a decision by the Confederate armies led by Robert E. Lee, Joseph E. Johnston, and others to melt into the countryside and continue fighting as guerrilla bands would not have promoted national reconciliation by any means. Likewise, the tragic drama of the Lincoln assassination plot could have had very different outcomes too. Yet there was resolution to the military side of the Civil War in this crucial month, and it is the nature of that resolution that Winik finds so compelling in making a well-reasoned and thought-provoking argument.
Rating:
Summary: History at its' best
Review: Just an outstanding read. Winik takes you through the many aspects of this evenful month. The events and characters that led up to it and also the ones that lived through and beyond April 1865. This book is a 'must read' for any serious historian or Civil War buff.
Rating: 
Summary: Civil War Civility?
Review: Mr. Winik does a very good job of describing the events of April and May 1865...the final chase before Lee surrenders to Grant and Johnston surrenders to Sherman; the assassination and funeral of Lincoln; the capture of John Wilkes Booth; the flight and capture of Jefferson Davis; the transition to a government with Andrew Johnson at the helm; the final surrenders of the remaining Confederate armies, etc. Although there is not much new here (and how could there be?) the author breathes life into the various events and they come across as fresh and interesting. There are many nice touches: such as Grant hemming-and-hawing at Appomattox because he doesn't want to humiliate Lee. Lee eventually had to broach the subject of surrender, because Grant was reluctant to come to the point; the author takes us into the presidential box at Ford's Theater, where Abraham and Mary Lincoln are holding hands while they watch "Our American Cousin"; we have Sherman chatting so amiably with Joe Johnston and John Breckinridge during their surrender discussions that Sherman finally quipped, "See here, gentlemen. Who is doing the surrendering, anyhow? If this thing goes on, you'll have me sending a letter of apology to Jeff Davis." However, on the negative side- because the author is dealing with familiar material and is trying to say something new, he sometimes oversteps the mark. He states that Lee and Johnston didn't have to surrender. They could have gone to the mountains or headed west, and carried on a guerrilla war "for decades." Lee is given high marks for surrendering, as is Johnston. While it is undoubtedly true that a guerrilla war could have been engaged in, the author gets a bit carried away with this counterfactual. Lee and Johnston are basically given credit for not being fanatics, because considering the vast superiority of the North in men and armaments, and considering that much of the South already lay in ruins, the decision to carry on with the fighting would not have been rational. The author gets higher marks for his argument that, generally speaking, it was amazing how the two sides reconciled after the shooting stopped- especially when you take the long view of history and look at other countries that went through the agony of revolution or civil war. While Mr. Winik is generally not shy in presenting his opinions he didn't have much to say about Sherman's "March To The Sea," other than to describe the awful devastation that Sherman's army left in its wake. Mr. Winik describes the looting, shooting of civilians, and wholesale burning of urban houses, businesses, farmhouses, crops, and destruction of bridges, railroad cars and tracks, etc. About 80% of the damage was to non-military targets. Sherman's logic was that anything goes in war, and the will of the South to fight had to be broken. Mr. Winik does not express his own opinion. He only says that historians "to this day" still argue about the ethics of what Sherman did. I won't be shy in expressing my opinion. Sherman was guilty of war-crimes, and if the South had won the war he would have been tried as a war criminal. (It really helps to come out on the winning side.) So, yes, Lee behaved like a gentleman at Appomattox (after doing his best to defeat a country he believed in, while fighting for a cause he didn't believe in- he was opposed to both secession and slavery) and Sherman tried to be generous with his defeated foes (after leaving countless civilians propertyless and poverty stricken). I also wanted to wince when the author stated that Jefferson Davis (who treated his slaves humanely) wasn't aware of how brutally some of his fellow slaveowners treated their "property." Hence, his failure to understand the vehement Northern objections to plantation life. Oh, really? Are we really supposed to believe that a politician of Mr. Davis's stature didn't know what was going on all around him? In any event, Mr. Winik has done a fine job of describing the events of April/May 1865, but he has perhaps erred on the side of romanticism/optimism in his view of human nature.
Rating:
Summary: Spectacular Saga of the Civil War's last days
Review: Author Jay Winik has managed to produced an amazing piece of historical reference with his book, "April 1865". He is dealing with a war (Civil War) that grips the American curiosity and imagination almost as much as World War II. However, instead of focusing on the broad scope of the entire war or the very narrow view of a specific battle, Winik tells the tale of the final month of the Civil War, where Lee surrendered to Grant, Lincoln was assassinated, and a potential reconciliation between North and South teetered on the edge of disaster.
Winik's thesis about the events that causes of the war and the impact the war would have on the country is unique and quite compelling. He posits that, despite what was seemingly accomplished at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the United States was not truly a 'nation' as a whole. Rather, it was simply a loose 'union' of 13 separate states that was held together by one single government. The words 'nation' and 'union' play important roles in Winik's narrative. Nation indicates a country that has a strong single identity that all members can identify with, whereas a union is just seen as alliance among many differing parties. Winik points out that neither the Constitution, nor the Declaration of Independence, make any reference to the United States being a 'nation'. All occurrences refer to it as a 'union' (witness the preamble of the Constitution which begins, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect 'Union'...."). He asserts that this was intentional on the parts of the founding fathers who were dealing with trying to form a central government for a land that was basically 13 separate countries. Attempts to forge a national identity were not made and did not come to fruition until post-Civil War. He cites numerous examples prior to South's secession in 1860 of different regions of the U.S. seeking to break off from the whole country. The Whiskey Rebellion rebels, New England during the War of 1812, and New York City and New Jersey throughout much of the early 1800's, are just a few of the examples of portions of the U.S. that made their own attempts at secession, but were discouraged from doing so before such plans could come to fruition. Winik contends that this lack of national identity that provoked these near crises in the early 19th century was what eventually enabled the South to secede over passionate 'states rights' issues and the divisive debate over slavery. It is his position that United States did not start to forge its national identity until it suffered through this horrible war and needed to come together to repair the country in its aftermath.
With this as a premise, Winik then goes into great detail about the players and events that would shape that last days of the Civil War and shape the future of the United States. In the waning days of the war, the country was at a major crossroads. Robert E. Lee's battered Army of Northern Virginia was faced with imminent defeat and pondering the logic of retreating and starting a guerrilla-style war that would keep the struggle going for years more. On the Northern side, Lincoln expressed great fear about just that type of tactic. It was a tactic that he felt would never enable this country to recover. Knowing that the Confederate armies were on the verge of defeat, Lincoln wanted to find the most humane way to end the war and receive the South back into the Union. Despite his best intentions, would Lincoln be able to accomplish his goal of reconciliation and would the country as a whole be able to continue his dream following his assassination?
"April 1865" explores the crucial decisions that men like Grant, Lee, Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, and Sherman, had to make in the final days. To add greater depth the men in these positions, Winik doesn't just make cursory references to the past and current state. He actually goes deep into their backgrounds to show where these men came from, how they thought, and how they would view the choices that needed to be made during this time. In a lesser author's hands, these biographical narratives would seem like nothing more than filler to pad the page total. In "April 1865", it seems absolutely necessary for these details to be published in order to allow the reader to feel a greater sense of empathy for these men and there struggles. Unlike some war novels, which seem to try and tell everyone's story (a very cumbersome read, to be sure), this saga focuses just on the major players mentioned above and a number of crucial smaller players whose actions would have a large impact on the countries future, like Nathan Bedford Forrest, John Mosby, and John Wilkes Booth.
Winik is able to transport the reader back to that fateful month with a compelling writing style that puts one right in the middle of these events. His focused context and fascinating thesis make this a fascinating read. "April 1865" is a mandatory requirement for any history buff's bookshelf.
Rating:
Summary: A Divided Nation: The Human Factors
Review: Being fascinated by the Civil War, I have often browsed books on the subject but never felt inclined to buy one ... until I picked up this book. The deciding factor to buy this one was the title: "April 1865: the Month that Saved America". Most books on the subject focus too much on battles, strategies, and outcomes, which can be cumbersome, afterall, it was a four year war. However, this author focuses on *the* *most* *important* month which highly appeals to me. Little did I realize, what a wide range of knowledge, depth and detail would be covered in *only* one month of this four year war. Once I started reading, I could not put the book down. It is full of scholarly research presented as if the author were an eyewitness to the events that unfolded. The author describes the characters and personalities of the key generals and even President Abraham Lincoln as if he knew them. It is a highly effective literary technique that makes the book very readable for the average reader. It balances well with the necessary well-researched details of key battles and outcomes. I was surprised to be mesmerized by the details of important battles, learning who won, how many soldiers were lost and who retreated, at what time and why ... fascinating, too was learning what strategies led to the outcomes for either side. This author uses vivid and colorful descriptions that make you want to learn more. Of note, is the introduction, which provides a background to help the reader understand what a fragile thing the "Constitution of the United States" really was at the time. One begins to see and appreciate how "building a nation" from sea to shining sea had tenuous moments where the outcomes *could* have been quite different indeed. It dawns on the reader how precious freedom really is and how important it is to safe-guard our hard-earned "rights". Reading about how the nation was divided - helps us understand how important it is to never let such a thing happen again. The author deftly side-steps the causes of the war, although he does mention slavery as being the primary reason. This is the only difference of opinion I have with the author. He takes the "easy way out" by blaming "slavery". In actuality, the South was fighting for their economic survival, they were defending their 'way of life'. They feared losing their main cash crop which they wanted to export to Europe, without Congress imposing excessive taxes that forced them to trade only with the North. Otherwise, I find the author avoids showing partiality to either the North or South. The book is written in a narrative fashion, almost, but not quite like a novel. It must have been hard to remain neutral while writing the facts yet somehow he manages this. He also writes compassionately about the suffering endured by the South. He depicts the destruction of Sherman's march through Atlanta and the southern cities much more mildly than it deserves, this no doubt is his attempt to remain neutral. Most interesting to me, was the detailed description of Abraham Lincoln and his responses to the war, an analysis of his feelings and conflicts, reasons why he may have been alone that fateful night he went to the theater. Most riveting is the description of the nine hour ordeal endured by his wife and the physicians, who kept vigil at the president's bedside, during the last hours of his life. Other memorable moments described in full technicolor detail are the surrenders of the Confederate generals. The author does a phenomenal job of describing the larger-than-life southern "bushwackers" who in today's terms would be called, "guerrilla fighters". Amazing how the South held out as long as it did - four solitary years of suffering for the cause they believed in. Such courage is worthy of admiration. Fighting for one's homeland and beliefs is one of the noblest causes for which human beings suffer, despite the high cost in terms of lives lost. One learns, the price of freedom is always paid in blood. From this book one can extrapolate meaning from war even in modern times. Erika B.
Rating:
Summary: Valuable contribution to American history.
Review: Jay Winik has made a great contribution to American history in his political history of the Civil War, APRIL 1865. Mr. Winik's thesis is that the magnanimous peace reached by the military combatants combined with the orderly change of power after the assisnation of Lincoln allowed the United States to come together as a nation. It is ahistorical that the United States survived as a republic after a bitter civil war. Many other countries that experimented with republican forms of governments did not come through civil wars intact. APRIL 1865 reveals how the United States was able to overcome history and establish a republic out of a diverse people who held various political and lifestyle views. Mr. Winik's research is impeccable and his synthesis of the various information is masterful. I highly recommend this book to both students of the Civil War and to those interested in political history.
Rating:
Summary: April 1865: The Month That Saved America
Review: I listened to the audio version of the book. Mr. Winik made a fatal mistake in electing to read the book himself. The delivery was a nasal, tortured monotone; there were many words (which seemed to be used repeatedly) that he simply could not pronounce correctly. He had an uncanny knack for putting the emphasis on the wrong word in every sentence. The fact that I am writing this review is an indication of how annoying it was to listen to this book. If this was an effort to save money by not hiring a professional reader, it was a bad idea. More importantly, however, the book was poorly written and utterly failed to prove the point suggested by the title. It suffered badly from the lack of critical editing. There was very little structure to the book; Winik's disjointed narrative was frequently interrupted with lengthy digressions into biographical skectches of key figures. While much of the information contained in these wanderings was interesting, the format really detracted from the overall flow of the book and prevented the author from ever getting to the point. Easily one-half of the book should have been left on the cutting room floor. Winik grossly overused adjectives and adverbs. Practically every sentence contained at least three. It just got to be too much. While the book had some surface level appeal because of my interest in the subject matter, the author never did develop his central theme. With all of the book's other deficiencies, I was sorely tempted to give it up midway; the only reason that I continued to listen was to see how he was going to bring it all together to prove his point. He never did. While many of the events that transpired during April, 1865 undoubtedly contributed to the eventual healing of the rift between north and south, there were, at least, an equal number of factors which could have caused the result to be different. Winik never developed his theme by analyzing the various factors and explaining why certain factors tended to prevail over others to produce the happy ending. Rather, he spent 15 tedious hours of reciting the facts (some not so accurately) and then concluding that these events worked to save America because the result could have been different. Overall, a disappointing effort.
Rating: 
Summary: The Last Secession
Review: I started "1865" expecting a bullet-by-bullet account of key battles along with the life stories of all the usual generals. It is anything but a military account. Winik reminds us that prior to the Southern Secession, some New England states had threatened to leave the Union over the War of 1812. And armed rebellion was nothing new either, when you consider that, as Winik points out, frontier farmers had fielded a small army to fight against Hamilton's whiskey tax. More startling was reading about Jefferson Davis's General Order Number 14, emancipating slaves who enlisted for the Confederacy. (Of course, civil rights in a future independent Confederate nation was another matter.) Winik makes the case that the South was really fighting for its independence, not slavery, and that whether the Union existed in perpetuity was, until this last secession, a question that had not been completely resolved. ... "April 1865" is a brilliant distillation, but still ...
|
