Why the South Lost the Civil War

Rating:
Summary: horrible...
Review: Beringer, et. al. provide a remarkable synthesis of military, social and cultural factors contributing to Confederate defeat. While much of their material may seem dry to young readers, this work is solid history written by consumate professionals. Although I disagree with their central thesis that a lack of will brought about the South's defeat, I do believe this had a significant effect along with the other factors. Perhaps, Beringer's thesis was a product of the era in which he wrote--the Post-Vietnam Era.

Rating:
Summary: Pretty complex book......
Review: I considered this book to be an interesting and quite a complex book which integrated all facets of Civil War elements to explained why the South lost the Civil War. To fully appreciate this book, you have to be pretty well knowledgable about Civil War and understand it without regional bias. This is a military history book and probably not geared toward the casual reader. I have read the previous reviews and they tell me that these folks probably didn't understand what the authors were trying to do. A good example would be how one of them would complaint about how the authors would compared things with the Napoleonic armies and tactics. Well, to anyone who knows anything about the American Civil War, most of the miltiary commanders who were West Pointers were heavily influenced by the Napoleonic Wars and concepts. The southern commanders especially were heavily influenced by this. Its only logical that some cause and effect reasonings must be shown between the Confederate military effort and Napoleonic influence. Others complaint about lack of nationalism in the Confederacy that book explain. Yes, nationalism was very high at the beginning of the war but it wane considerably by the end. Like the Third Reich, Confederacy fought on beyond a reasonable limit and led to a devastating effects to the region as result. Lack of nationalism definitely made it easier for the North to overcome the south in the end as southern armies were bleeding men who were just walking away from their unit (see that movie Cold Harbor for small example). The hard core Confederate soldiers was heavily outnumbered by the southern population who just wanted the war to end. Was the authors bias against the south? I don't think so. I think the authors were pretty straight forward on the facts why the south lost the war. In defeat, the picture is never very pretty.

Overall, I found the book to be interesting. I supposed it could have been written so it might be easier for the casual readers but since it wasn't intended for such readers, it leaves folks like me to enjoyed what the authors had to say and to understand their perception even if I may agreed or disagreed at my option.

Rating:
Summary: An appalling book
Review: The thesis of this book is that the South lost the War because of insufficient nationalism. To call this argument preposterous is to be kind. Out of a white population of nine million the South lost a quarter of a million dead and many times that number in wounded. The South kept fighting until every Southern city was controlled by the Union. A small agrarian nation, the South fought a large, industrialized nascent world power. Unbelievably the South came close to winning this unequal contest. To contend that the South failed because of lack of will is ahistoric and a contemptible insult to the brave rebels who fell under the stars and bars. A better judge of Southern will during that war was General Grant who, while attacking the Southern cause, admitted that never had men fought harder for a cause than the Southerners.

Rating:
Summary: Waste of Time and Money
Review: This book is a complete waste. The central thesis is a
joke. The South spilled a lot of blood trying to save their
new nation and to say they lacked nationalism is bad. There was
problems with State's Rights issues among the various Governors
of the States (esp. Georgia, N. Carolina) but among the soldiers
it wasn't that bad.

The author's continued comparison of the South's
military tactic's to those of German and French General's
who served under Napolean is just annoying since the books
written by these Generals were either not yet published in
English or published at all and I doubt that many confederates
spent much time reading them the works in French or German.

This book is just another reason why many people think
history is boring. If you want a good read, pick up a Civil
War book by James McPherson, Shelby Foote, Douglas Southall
Freeman, or Bruce Catton.

Rating:
Summary: An Enduring Classic
Review: _Why the South Lost the Civil War_ was hailed as a classic at its first appearance in 1986, and it continues to remain a useful survey of the Civil War and an exploration of the reasons for the Confederacy's defeat. I have regularly assigned it to my undergraduate and graduate students at both the University of Central Arkansas (where I taught until 1999) and Temple University, and most have never failed to get a lot out of it (including those who are professional military officers).

In many ways, the book is a reflection of America's experience in the Vietnam War, where the side with the larger armies, greater wealth, and technological advantages failed to win. To say that the Confederacy lost the Civil War simply because it was outnumbered and outgunned is only half the story. Why did Confederates choose to quit when their forebears in the American Revolution persevered against even more formidable odds? While some may question this book's insufficient nationalism thesis, it is delineated with such grace and authority that the effort demands respect.

The book begins by providing a comprehensive overview of previously offered theories explaining the fall of the Confederacy. That historiographical survey alone makes this book worth the price of admission and makes it an invaluable tool for the serious Civil War student.

As some of the other reviews here attest, this is not a book for those who prefer their Civil War history as vapid entertainment. If you are just interested in killing, there are plenty of good battle and campaign histories to read. But if you are the kind who wonders why nations rise and fall and how wars are won and lost, you will find this a rewarding and thought-provoking experience.