« "JJ72" by JJ72 | Main | "Chased by the Light: a Video Journey with Jim Brandenburg" »
June 27, 2004
"The Confederate War" by Gary Gallagher
Noted Civil War historian Gary Gallagher takes on some of the common perceptions of the Civil War in this thoughtful historiography, "The Confederate War". He contends that Civil War historians look at the conflict by working backwards from Lee's surrender at Appomattox, and by examining why the South was defeated. Gallagher takes on the issue in a different way, looking at the conflict from beginning to end and detailing how the Confederacy was able to last so long in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds.
Gallagher begins by looking at the previous works of other historians and sets forth his own hypotheses in three areas: popular will, nationalism, and military strategy. In the first, he looks at the widespread belief that the South lost the will to fight. Most historians contend that this occurred in the summer of 1863 after the dual defeats at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. Gallagher disagrees, and gives ample evidence that the South was still in favor of continuing the war. He even claims that, if anything, the South became more determined as the war stretched into '64 and '65. To prove his point, Gallagher looks at desertion rates and attacks the widely held theory that the Army of Northern Virginia was disintegrating during the Petersburg campaign. He argues that desertions occurred because soldiers were worried about the safety of their families in the face of the Union advance into Virginia, not because they were losing faith in the cause. He also contends that many soldiers actually returned to the front lines after ensuring the safety of their families.
As the war continued, and as the Confederacy became more desperate for troops, the idea of gradual emancipation was raised, even by such notables as Robert E. Lee. Gallagher uses this to show that the South was willing to do anything necessary to win the war; they were even willing to give up their basic social structure: slavery, in order to become an independent nation. At this point Gallagher brings up the idea of nationalism, and contends that civilians of the South felt a strong national identity. Furthermore, that sense of nationalism is due in large part to the Army of Northern Virginia and it's charismatic General Lee. Gallagher makes a strong case throughout the book that the Confederate people saw the army as the figurehead of the South.
Finally, Gallagher tackles military strategy. Historians often make the case that the Confederacy should have changed it's military strategy by waging a defensive campaign and by adopting guerilla warfare. Gallagher argues that these are flawed ideas, and this is the strongest portion of the book. Neither of these strategies would have been successful because they both lack inspiration. By waging a defensive war, the South would not have received the benefits of the morale boosts provided by Lee's army after victories like Chancellorsville and Fredricksburg. Gallagher uses Lee's first campaign as an example. During the Seven Days, he was nicknamed "King of Spades" because of his insistence on digging earthworks. During this time morale flagged in the South because Lee was waging a defensive campaign. Thereafter, he employed an aggressive offensive strategy which was mostly successful until Ulysses S. Grant took command in 1864.
Gallagher uses a similar argument to contend that a guerilla war would not have produced a Confederate victory. He goes through a long list of problems with this theory. Most importantly, there would be no massive army like Lee's to look up to, which would cause morale problems amongst the civilians of the South. A guerilla war would have caused problems with slavery and would have required ceding some territory to the Union because the very nature of a guerilla war is that it is fought against an occupying force. Also, the professional military would have been alienated and there would be almost no chance that the Confederacy would be recognized, much less supported, by European nations.
In summary, this book looks at some of the most common perceptions of the Confederacy which have been in place throughout this century and refutes them. However, Gallagher encounters the same problem of the historians that he is refuting, in that he is still generalizing. Of course he can find letters from the common Southerner that speak of "our country", but there are plenty of letters that support the opposite theory. Because of this, there will always be disagreements about what was in the hearts and minds of Southerners during the war. The strong point of this book is when Gallagher shows that Lee's army was the rallying point and figurehead for the Southern cause and that they followed the best strategy possible by more often than not taking the fight to the enemy, rather than letting the enemy come to them. In the end, the book once again shows just how important Lee and his army were to the Confederacy, and demonstrates that without his leadership and the inspiring effect he had on the populace, the war would certainly have ended much sooner.
Posted on June 27, 2004 at 12:24 PM
Comments
MIKE!!!
I was googling Gary Gallagher and, what do ya know, your review came up! I am at UVa at a Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History Seminar (28 teachers, two NPS rangers) on the Civil War. Have you ever been to one of these? The topics are fabulous, I had trouble deciding what to apply for! I'm guessing you're aware of the programs because GL is in NYC. (if not, check out gilderlehrman.org)My course is being led by Gary Gallagher and Ed Ayres. Both are fantastic. You'd love Gary's lectures...incredibly informative and VERY funny. After tomorrow's lecture (1865), we're going to Spotsylvania. Can't wait to get my stamp!
How are things in NYC?
Posted by: Lauren at June 29, 2006 10:07 PM