Rating: 
Summary: 4 1/2 stars...Jay Winik does it again...
Review: For me, this was a pleasantly unique look at the Civil War...Jay Winik has proven capable of taking complex/integrated issues and breaking them down into damn fine story-telling. His book "On The Brink" dealt with the Reagan administration's managing of the end of the Cold War and more than met this tough standard. In "April 1865" we get the final month of the Civil War put under the microscope and many new details (to me) surfaced that were not part of my Civil War common knowledge (...the very high potential for guerilla warfare while surrender terms were being discussed at Appomattox, the details of the Sherman-Johnston surrender at Bennet House...etc.) Winik also tells the story of April 1865 without sacrificing the "big picture" (we get a decent summary and perspective on how the war got to this point). He also goes into the main reasoning of how the war started (slavery) and covers, sometimes in gruesome detail, strategies of some of the major battles. Also, his summaries of the "Wilderness" battle and subsequent confrontations leading to and including the siege at Petersburg (the Overland campaign) is as well told as I've read from Catton or Foote. The real eye-opening aspect of this book, however, is Winik's conclusions that draw the reader to the realization of how close we really came to a disjointed nation at the end and how this country owes much to the leaders of both sides, following Lincoln's assasination and before the "Reconstruction" effort started, for pulling the Nation together. My only critique (and the reason that it gets 4 1/2 stars) is that the Epilouge really needed to talk in more detail about the the results of the Reconstruction and the timeline that it followed (he did a marvelous job, for example, telling us that most of the major Southern states didn't re-join the Nation until 1870). Overall, this book deserves to be mentioned right up there with most of the popular Civil War books and should be required Civil War reading. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: As Good As It Gets
Review: If you are seeking a first rate overview of the Civil War, its causes and its importance to America as we know it, look no further. Using April, 1865, as his focal point, Winik reaches back to the Founding Fathers and forward to what might have been had this pivotal month turned out differently. He provides excellent insights to Lincoln, Lee, Grant, Davis and other key players. He also presents historical facts that most casual Civil War observers probably don't know including the assasination conspiracy, the fact that Appomattox was not the definitive end of the war and that several attempts at secession had been made by other regions during the country's first seventy years. His depiction of the fall of Richmond is gripping.
And, in addition to the wealth of information and insight provided, this history book reads like a best selling novel!
Rating: 
Summary: "Reader's Digest" History
Review: April 1865 provides an interesting, if speculative context to the end of America's great catharsis. The book provides several useful, if not unfamiliar premises: (a) The secessionist tradition in America predates the crises; (b) A civil outcome to the war was not preordained, resting largley in the foresight, common sense and uncommon magnanimity of the principals; (c) But for the grace of Robert E. Lee, guerilla warfare might have perpetuated "the cause" at the cost of sustained malevolence and instability; (d) The South considered emancipating slaves willing to serve in the army; and (e) At Lincoln's death the vagaries of the Constitution left an open issue the means of executive continuity.The work is not groundbreaking, and often lacks balance and scholarship. The narrative style wanders, the prose verbose, and descriptions prone to hyperbole. Throughout the aforementioned premises, Winik weaves abridged biographies of key players. With the possible exception of the author's extended focus on Lee, a discerning high school history student will find these sketches minimal. Winik's admiration for Lee rivals that of D.S. Freeman's. In this and other respects, the reader can suspect a "Southern apologist". As for Lee's counterpart, while allowing for Grant's magnanimity and integrity, Winik perpetuates the myth of "Grant the Butcher," attributing Federal successes to remorseless will and ubiquitous resources against a more brave and crafty foe. More egregious is Winik's suggestion that the South's consideration to free its slaves to bolster the ranks may have been due to enlightenment as much as desparation. The assertion is not well argued or documented, flying in the facae of 4 million slaves physically and psychologically degradated by their bondage. It is also naive to believe, as Winik alleges, that Jeff Davis -- a consumate politician -- was blind to the brutality around him (though humane to his own slaves). Winik's weakest link is the suggestion that once guerrila warfare was averted reconcilliation, union and a new national identify was inevitable. He only refers in passing to the political strife and social chaos that plagued post-war Reconstruction. The editing is loose and errors annoying if not pivotal to the story. Within a span of two pages Salmon Chase is both Chief Justice and Treasury Secretary (he was, but at Treasury first). In citing Stanton's epitaph of Lincoln, Winik defers to a bedside stenographer over Stanton's own account. In a succession of three pages the "Capitol dome was being refurbished," then "domeless," then "finally complete." Other errors include Sherman being distinguished at Shiloh (he failed to entrench and was badly surprised); Scott offering Lee command of the Union Army (the offer was rendered by Montgomery Blair on behalf of the Lincoln administration); and Custer wearing buckskins at the Grand Review (red scarf yes; bucks no). In one illusion, Winik draws the reader to what similar post-war devestation would have looked like in the North. In proposing possible careers cut short he names Alexander Graham Bell. Bell had not yet emigrated from Scotland in 1865. So it goes. The book would have been more effectively concluded with the final chapter's emotionally effecting story of the emancipated slave and Lee communing at St. Paul's in Richmond. Instead, the Epilogue is a frightful, reptition of wandering and random observations in a largely failed effort to bring analysis and closure to various themes. Winik forgoing traditional endnotes for a collective reference is hardly the widespread practice he alleges and makes association of his citations to the relevant text nearly impossible. April 1865 is a decent effort to raise and underscore the issues, uncertainties and importance of the war's climax. Unless a general reader seeking introductory understanding, I would defer to the works of McPherson, Catton, and Foote or even E. Porter Alexander's honest and objective memior. Good book or not, as (to date) 152 previous reviews suggest, the Civil War continues a strong hold on the American psyche.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding and informative - a MUST for history buffs
Review: What is so great about APRIL 1865 is the insight it offers into how differently American history might have read with even the smallest differences in decision-making on the parts of Lincoln, Grant, Lee, and others at the end of the Civil War. You can almost see the Harry Turtledove alternative history plot lines jump out at you. Plus, Winik integrates interesting biographies of all the major players - Lincoln, Grant, Lee, Booth, Davis, Johnston, Sherman, and others - to give you sense of how such a brutal war gave way to such a noble peace (at first, before the bitter Reconstruction). And given THAT perspective, of how much WORSE America might have been if not for a noble peace, the reader is also left to wonder how much BETTER the country would have fared had Lincoln lived to see his "malice for none" vision realized. Still, the troubling specter of Confederate troops staging a protracted guerilla war in the late 1860s - the very type of war that won this country its own independence from the British - as well as the description of how Lincoln would have lost his 1864 reelection bid (which would have ended the war and left a divided North and South) but for the 9th inning capture of Atlanta - gives a sense that we are lucky indeed to still be one country. And Winik details Lee's last days on the run from Grant in such dramatic fashion that you almost hope he WILL escape to fight again. The miserable conditions of the Civil War are set forth in disturbing detail - as they should be - to get past that romantic Gone With the Wind sense that some may have. Winik suggests that it was the South that showed significantly better military skills, and the North was only able to win through pure numbers of soldiers available to be slaughtered, combined with the South's inability to feed and arm its soldiers. Lee and other Southern generals come off as heroes (as does, of course, Lincoln) while Grant is given more mediocre reviews. Comparative world history and US Constitutional history offer excellent context for what was indeed a sequence of miracles that allowed this country to survive its civil war, where most have failed. A great read!
Rating:
Summary: A Fabulous Book
Review: This is one of those special books that genuinely deserves its New York Times bestseller status. April 1865 is fresh, thoughtful, extremely well-researched, and exceptionally well-written. Jay Winik takes events we all think we know and suddenly makes us understand that there was nothing inevitable about Appomattox or the country surviving the Lincoln assasination just five days later. His portraits of the central players -- Lincoln, Lee, Grant, and Sherman -- and many others give you a powerful sense of the men and the era and what they all had to overcome. As a Northerner transplanted by work to the South, I have gained a far better appreciation and understanding of my country after reading this book. You can enjoy it if you are a devoted Civil War buff or a novice reader, like my wife. April 1865 is destined to become a classic, while at the same time being one of those rare books that is a true delight to read. If I had had professors like Jay Winik, I might have been a history major -- but this book almost makes up for that. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: I hated for it to end...
Review: A lengthy book about one MONTH of Civil War history? I was dubious about buying it, but luckily curiosity got the better of me. Winik is the kind of writer who is so completely conversant with his subject matter that he can wander all over the globe (which he does) and you just can't get enough of it. April 1865 was a nice change from the blow by blow descriptions of each battle I've been reading lately, as I try to learn more about the Civil War. This book did more to explain the big WHY to me than anything I've read so far. All the main players and then some are portrayed as complete human beings. I found every paragraph interesting and came away admiring Winik almost as much as I did some of the great generals in our country's history. The book is a fascinating survey of the war's end, with so much background thrown in that everything is put neatly into context. What a tremendous accomplishment! I thoroughly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: High on my list of Civil War reads
Review: Jay Winik's 'April 1865' held my interest and concentration throughout, including his very last sentence. His work is invaluable for its comprehensive treatment of the final month of war and for its in-depth studies of both commanders-in-chief, their top generals, and the guerilla leaders from all sectors. Particularly enlightening are the emotionally-packed moments that Winik highlights when fears, fatique, starvation, and despair led to indecision that weakened the determination of both sides to push their troops and themselves beyond human endurance.
This author weaves words into impressively clear details of the character, background, education, cultural level, abilities, and motives that were at work in the leaders of both armies, savagely, at times, struggling to gain victories and cessation of bloody battles that many were often deserting in horror or sheer terror. Winik enables a reader to "see into" the course of the struggle, the final underlying desire of victor to deal compassionately with vanquished, but the consequent attitudes resulting from harsh measures taken to acquire a win over superior fighters and dogged devotion to their cause.
I learned more than I have ever known about "other surrenders" that followed Appomattox, about Lincoln's assassination and others planned but unsuccessful, about Lincoln's weak vice president who assumed office, and about the status of our broken nation, truly for a while "in God's hands."
I highly recommend this book. Yes, Winik is Dickensonian in style and much like Faulkner in the excessiveness of description. However, his phrases fully inform and his choice of words is excellent. Nothing seems wasted as he leads one to agree with his thesis. He builds genuine belief that America is a nation with a uniqueness of heritage and the blessing of leaders whose individual groups were influenced to follow them toward achieving the greatest victory then at stake, a national and not a sectional identity and a great and enduring national spirit.
A truly great job, Mr. Winik!
Rating:
Summary: The alternative choice that could have been far worse.
Review: This is an excellent overview of the events leading up to and through the month when the Civil War ended. It's an experiment in suggestive alternative history which is an interesting twist, which attempts not to explain why Lincoln, Grant, Lee and others did what they did, but how easily they could have done something else. And this something else could have had a more long-term negative impact on the "peace" achieved. I have seen Jay Wink a couple of times at the UCLA book fairs and although I found the subject of his book interesting I found him a bit arrogant, at least in its marketing. No doubt that is one reason it has sat so long on the shelf unread. Yet, to Mr. Wink's credit I think he has given the general reader, interested in the civil war, a book of interesting insight. Mr. Wink, no doubt is a big Robert E. Lee fan and may go a bit overboard to indicate that it was "possible" the South was going to free the slaves before the North did. I, however, appreciated reading his supporting thesis for presenting this idea. What I most liked was his conclusion or main point of the book. That this nation was not born July 4th, but became one nation, with one re-interpreted constitution in April 1865.
Rating:
Summary: Could have been.
Review: As other reviewers have noted here, this book by Jay Winik is one any serious student of American history, especially of our Civil War, needs to have on their shelves. Winik seems to fill in many of the details of this event so that a more complete picture is available. There were a number of details of which I was not aware like the other attacks on the administration the night Abe Lincoln was shot. I appreciated Winik's work in giving biographical data on the various personalities involved at the end of the war. It was amazing to actually realize that so much took place within the short time frame of April 1865. Winik's book puts these many related events into an easy-to-understand framework. At the end of the book Winik reviews the various ways things 'could have been' had there been a slight change here or there. I found the book very worthwhile but feel that while Winik is a good historian and writer, he is not a good reader. His reading is, in my opinion, hampered by frequent examples of poor enunciation, like saying "baddo" instead of "battle." Otherwise this ia great book.
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.
|
