April 1865: The Month That Saved America

Rating:
Summary: Poorly researched distortion of crucial events
Review: Winik's book, "April 1865," is a mix of good and bad. He's written a readable treatise, and has emphasized events that were previously discounted or that remained unlinked. Unfortunately, his research is anything but scholarly, and some of his conclusions are based on myth and wishful thinking rather than fact. Combine this with prose that often strays into hyperbole, and you get a book that infuriates the educated Civil War buff as much as it enlightens.

Here are a few things that Winik made me think about: (1) That there might have been alternatives to a peaceful surrender at Appomattox and elsewhere. (2) The Confederacy's plan to enlist blacks into their army might have been as much a consequence of enlightenment as it was from desperation. (3) John Wilkes Booth, whom I had never read much about before. I had no idea he was so famous. It'd be like Russell Crowe knocking of Bush. (4) Secession was an American tradition.

Unfortunately, Winik's bibliography is woefully thin. It would appear that he based most of his book on popular - and generally well-regarded - existing narratives, such McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" and Foote's Civil War narrative, not to mention the largely romanticized and academically ancient (1934) biography of Lee by Douglas Southall Freeman. Because Winik did not research the primary sources himself, his book is at least twice removed from the actual events. Anyone who's played "operator" knows what distortion must result.

Winik's shoddy research sheds doubt on most of his assertions. His riskiest assertion, concerning the Confederacy's latent emancipation movement, looks no more than wistful speculation backed as it is by no credible source. Considering overwhelming evidence showing the Confederacy turned to emancipation only in desperation, Winik needs to provide more proof than a few quotes from the hypocritical General Lee. Winik's neglect of race and the Civil War has been noted in other reviews, but it's also somewhat spurious to show only examples of those slaves who were willing to fight for the Confederacy. Certainly the slaves who ran away to the North during the war vastly outnumbered those who offered to take up arms for their former masters. Does that not mean something?

Winik's prose wanders all over the page. Large chunks feel like filler. Other reviewers have given examples of poor prose. Let me add an example of Winik's strange fascination with gore, from a passage intended to describe the condition of the South in April 1865:

"Here and there, dismembered corpses lie scattered about, their stinking, bloated remains eviscerated by rats and scavenger birds, their decaying flesh staring up at the stars at night..."

Putting aside the wonder of a dismembered corpse "staring" at stars, does anyone think that the entire South was littered with bodies? Of course not. It's a classic example of hyperbole, exaggeration with no discernable purpose. It's just plain poor writing.

In my reviews, I tend to be harsher on non-fiction than I am with fiction. Especially on books covering crucial moments in our nation's history, and books that comment on today's social milieu. "April 1865" earns especial condemnation because it is largely a political book. Written by a careerist political functionary, this book seems to be an apologist tract for the slaveholding history of the South. In my opinion, it does not make good history to avoid or downplay the ugly realities of American history. I don't mean to single out the South for condemnation - northerners have plenty to be ashamed of, including providing the shipping and capital to obtain slaves - but it seems popular in certain circles to divert attention from the South's racist origin. Let's not forget that the people living in the South today are not responsible for slavery, but let's also not over-glorify those who fought in its defense.

Rating:
Summary: ????
Review: Remove the biographies of the major characters and this book has very little to offer. Richmond burns, Lee and Johnston surrender, Lincoln is assassinated and then the funeral....okay, so we do get to see how the government continued for the hours after Lincoln's death...but where's the beef?

Rating:
Summary: Knawing little inaccuracies
Review: I like this book. Winik is a good storyteller and gives about as unbiased view of the War For Southern Independence as can be given and still be published. When the politically correct crowd and their professional victim allies are trying to remove Lee's image from Richmond, Winik has the courage to tell America that Lee, as much as Lincoln, is responsible for the fact that we have won the lottery of life by being born with an American passport. But, I can never forgive him for referring to "Little Billy" Mahone as the "tall general" who rode beside Lee. Mahone was lots of things, but at four feet and change, tall wasn't one of them.

Rating:
Summary: National Unity Was Not Assumed
Review: This book is valuable reading for nonspecialists because it is a reminder of how difficult it was to establish national unity in the United States. Jay Winik lists some of the ways in which the concept of nationhood in the early United States was questioned.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "a single consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on earth."(Page 11)

Also at about that time, when New England threatened secession, Jefferson wrote, "whether we remain in our confederacy or break into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I do not believe is very important to the happiness of either part." (page 11)

The Declaration of Independence was described as the "unanimous declaration of the thirteen united States of America." (Page 11) (To belabor the unobvious: note the uncapitalized "united").

As historian Daniel Boorstin wrote, "Independence had not created one nation but thirteen." (page 11)

Other attempt to secede included the Whisky Rebellion which was the East against the West over taxes - not the North against the South over slavery (Page 17); The Virginia and the Kentucky Resolutions secretly written by Madison and Jefferson, holding that states could nullify acts of Congress (page 17); and, the Hartford Convention in which New England states, talked of a separate peace in the War of 1812 and secession (page 18).

Winick notes that The Articles of Confederation had said that the union would be "perpetual" whereas the Constitution spoke only of a "more perfect union."(Page 19)

According to one scholar, the sense of Confederate national identity in 1861 was actually far stronger than the American national identity at the time of the Constitution. (Page 47)

At a time in the early 21st Century, when many would separate us on cultural or linguistic lines, it is good to remember that our sense of nationhood was never really assumed until after the Civil War.

There is much more including the harrowing night when Lincoln was killed, the Secretary of State was attacked and the Vice-President survived a near miss. There is the fascinating discussion around Andrew Johnson's assumption of the Presidency.

The role of Robert E. Lee in ensuring a final close to the Civil War without a guerilla campaign favored by many Southerners is dissected.

This is a very interesting book.

Rating:
Summary: Get the facts right
Review: I have recently read Mr Winik's book April 1865 the month that saved America. I found nothing new in this book. I have read better and more factually correct versions of the incident's he chose to offer up as a definitive history. Ok one of the things I hated about history in school was the memorization of dates, seem's our author has the same distaste because he shuffel's them like a deck of cards. One of the principal characters of this account is Mr.J.W.Booth. Mr Booth's life is extremely well documented as are his features, yet the author has him supposedly dying on his birthday the 26 th of April, and changing the color of his eyes to hazel from the deep brown of the family's heridity.
Mr Booth was born May 10th 1838.His eyes were considered black. Mr Winik also seems to have a special affinity for The secretary of War, E,Stanton and has him turn quite poetic at Lincolns passing, Now he belongs to the angels? hmmm interesting turn of phrase. Mr Winik writes well and his book is easily understood, perhaps that is the problem. The civil war is something that can not be easily disected or pigeon holed. Still it would have been more plausable if the small details had been better researched, it would have given more credence to the whole book.

Rating:
Summary: How to clear a room quickly; put on a cassette of April 1865
Review: Yes, you can get rid of everyone the instant Jay Winik starts to drone through his book. What torture. Who let him read it? What kind of editor let this book go to print? I could forgive his awful reading, but only slightly, if this book were interesting and well written. It is neither. He continually puts thoughts into historical figures' heads. He overuses adjectives to the point of excess. Someone should ban him from using 'and' more than twice in a sentance. Need I continue?

Rating:
Summary: Riveting!
Review: For anyone interested in the Civil War or the 'what if' of history, this book is a must read! I couldn't put it down! Beyond the historical context of the Civil War and certain events that led up to it and its end, which Winik does a great job with, the book is very well written and holds the reader. His use of narrative to bring the reader into the story is superb. The section on the idea of the Confederates taking to the hills and embarking on a guerilla campaign really held me spellbound. And the exchange between Grant and Lee at Appomattox did the same.

When I finished the book I couldn't stop raving about it to my wife, so she decided to pick it up. She too was almost immediately pulled into the book. And that's a huge statement since she's not generally a big fan of history.

An incredible piece of work!

Rating:
Summary: A masterful thesis and a good summary
Review: Mr Winik makes a good point -- namely, that April 1865 was arguably the most pivotal month in American history. That month, Lee surrendered his weary forces to Grant, and Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Of far greater importance, however, was the gentlemanly and mutually respectful surrender of the two foes, and the graceful transition of power after Lincoln was killed.
Winik makes an excellent point that events did not have to occur with such grace and blessing. On the contrary, the outcome of most civil wars -- both before the US Civil War and afterward -- is intense partisan hatred, guerrilla warfare, and a violence that dismembers the country for generations afterward. The outcome of most assassinations is a period of chaos, which this country could ill afford shortly before a major effort to reconstruct the South. The simple but decent gesture of Grant and Lee exchanging respectful salutes as they parted company at Appomattox, and the good fortune that the assassins' plot to kill other members of the Federal government failed, helped "save" America from a period of bloodshed and disruption that may well have destroyed our chances for future greatness and the chances for American-style democratic evolution in the rest of the world.

Instead, the qualities of decency, basic trust, and sheer grace prevailed -- the Lord smiled upon us, and the good guys won this one.

I think Winik makes a convincing point that the month was one of the pivotal points in American and world history. His only major flaws are a prose style that gets a bit too flowery at times, a tendency to wander, and a failure to explain why the bitterness of a devastated South did not lead to individual attempts at personal vengeance. Although his thesis is indeed intriguing, his research is fairly straightforward and Civil War hobbyists may be able to skim through much of the book.

Again, an emotionally and intellectually satisfying work.

Rating:
Summary: A few too many chestnuts from Ken Burns
Review: This is the kind of book that is fun to read out loud. At times, the narrative has the grace and eloquence of a Lincoln speech or a Lee letter. Mr. Winik sprinkles endearing biographical capsules throughout the book without upsetting the flow. However, after recently viewing Ken Burns' "Civil War" for the second time, I found that Mr. Winik had included far too many of the memorable quotes from the Burns' script. It got to the point that with each battle or political conflict, I could predict the next quote. Perhaps it is a tribute to Burn's indelible work of art. Or, perhaps it just showcases my ignorance of the universality of such quotes. Enjoy the book, but as you read, don't blame me if you hear David McCullough's voice over the strains of Ashoken Farewell

Rating:
Summary: Much more than a month
Review: I wasn't sure if it would be best to start reading about the Civil War with a book about its final days, but Jay Winik did such a great job of weaving the necessary background information into his narrative that I didn't feel like I needed anything extra to fully appreciate APRIL 1865. On its own it's a fine book about the end of the Civil War and a great starting point that makes you want to dig deeper and learn more about this most tumultuous time.

Usually whenever a book goes into details about a military battle, my eyes glaze over with technical details about weapons or strategies I know nothing about. Mr. Winik, however, wrote about combat in a way that was dramatic and heartwrenchingly descriptive. You really get a sense of the tremendous loss, the savagery, the suffering. Confederate troops who survived intensely vicious combat wound up dying of starvation during a grueling march toward what they hoped would be supply trains containing rations - all because of a logistical error. Missouri was a bloodbath away from the battlefield where citizens were tortured and butchered based on their allegiance to one side or another. Lincoln's assassination was part of a larger plot to knock off the three top officials in the U.S. government and Winik writes of his slow, agonizing death in painful detail.

Parts of APRIL 1865 are quite relevant today. Mr. Winik discusses Jefferson Davis' mulling over the option of officially surrendering yet continuing the war, guerrilla-style. If Davis hadn't ruled out that option, there could have been sustained instability and violence throughout the country. It's a timely reminder of how difficult it can be to fight against terrorism.

APRIL 1865 is an interesting and well-written account of the waning days of the Civil War which will whet your appetite to learn more about that era of American history.