The Civil War, Vol. 2: Fredericksburg To Meridian (1986) - Plot & Excerpts
Shelby Foote continues to use his great narrative style to full effect in this, his second in the series of Civil War histories. This volume mostly covers the events of 1863, although the books in this series are not designed to start and stop according to precisely equivalent calendar time frames. Volume I ended after the bloodbath of Antietam (Sharpsburg) in the fall of 1862. Volume II takes up with events following the removal of the American commander, George McClellan, and replacement by General Burnside in time to start off with the December 1862 charnel house of Fredricksburg and continues with all of the major, and minor, conflicts of 1863, ending in the spring of 1864, when General Ulysses Grant had taken over command of all of the Union's Armies. Foote does probably the best job any historian accomplishes in the way of describing the developments occurring simultaneously in different theaters. Thus, he will describe Grant's trials and tribulations in finding a way to attack the formidable Confederate defenses preventing the full navigation of the Mississippi River, at Vicksburg, Mississippi (while Grant was commander of the Federal Army of Tennessee) and segue into the contemporary conflicts between the Federal Army of the Potomac and Rebel Army of Northern Virginia as they fought at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg in May and July of the same year. Both during and after these events, there were naval, army, and combined actions along the southern coastline, including the Federal attempts to capture Charleston; the Federal attempts to invade and occupy at least a section of Texas, in order to block any attempt by Mexico's (French) Maximillian from forming an alliance with the Confederacy; and the Federal capture of Chattanooga followed by the battles of Chickamauga Creek and Missionary Ridge in Tennessee and Northern Georgia. This is just a sample of what Foote is able to juggle at any given time. The service he does to the reader is to give an organized, highly digestible account of dozens of instances of what would have been, contemporaneously, continuing news, good and disastrous, to the civilians and government officials on both sides as they tried to live through this national nightmare.There have been newer accounts of these events over the decades since the publication of this book, but I doubt anyone would have given a more enjoyable description than Foote, in his unique narrative style. It's not that any historical details have been missed, or controversies avoided. The Vicksburg and Gettysburg sections of the book, in particular, are described in major, incisive detail.One point of contention which will perhaps always be debated is the effect of U.S. Grant's drinking on his behavior. Bruce Catton had earlier done a masterful job of exorcising the ghost of alcoholism on Grant's behavior during the Civil War, but Foote is not as charitable. One difference between the two derives from an eyewitness account from a newspaperman named Cadwallader who traveled with him on a two-day trip up the Yazoo and claimed to have seen the General repeating his pre-war drunken behavior. Trouble was, this account didn't get reported until Cadwallader wrote his memoirs thirty years later. Nevertheless, Foote places credence in this report.A continuing source of enjoyment is Foote's usage of the nicknames of the opposing Generals instead of constantly using "General this" and "General that." Thus, we become familiar with "Old Rosy" (William Rosencrans); "Old Jack", or, as history now records, "Stonewall" (Thomas Johathan Jackson]; "Fighting Joe" Hooker; Earl "Buck" Van Dorn; "Old Brains" (Henry W. Halleck); "Little Powell" (A.P. Hill); William F. "Baldy" Smith, and so on.Using a lighthearted technique like this is welcome in a story that was becoming increasingly grim, not just because of the mounting death count, important as that was, but because the mood of both countries, North and South, was worsening. Foote keeps us aware that there were two Presidents, living in two White Houses, who were growing increasingly despondent and anxious daily. Both were hands-on managers of their armed forces. Each had to face growing public discontent and severe criticism from their political enemies while personally bearing the heavy burden of constant military reverses many times caused by generals who used bad judgement or lost their competitive edge when confronted with the stress of battle. Thus Lincoln grew increasingly anxious while needing to relieve, in this volume alone, Burnside, Hooker and Meade from the main Union army, and Rosencrans from command of the Army of the Cumberland; while Jeff Davis, luckily holding his trump card in the brilliant Robert E. Lee, had to suffer through Lee's Pennsylvania invasion debacle while wincing at the subpar performance of such important generals as Pemberton, Johnston and Bragg.Foote masterfully uses irony at times to describe the war's often hideous results. He relates the Federal attempt to storm Battery Wagner on Morris Island in Charlston Harbor. This is the battle when the Federal forces were led into the fight by the all-Black Massachusetts regiment portrayed in the wonderful film "Glory." The regiment, as Foote tells the story, was led by officers who were white "Boston bluebloods". In an hour, it was nearly wiped out, with the attackers taking over fifteen hundred casualties, including the Massachusetts regiment's commander, Robert Gould Shaw. Nothing was gained from this costly attack. As Foote reports, Shaw's mother had earlier cried for the good fortune that God had bestowed on her, as she pridefully witnessed her boy leading the regiment off to war at its grand farewell review in Boston. Within seven weeks, as Foote states, "it developed that God had not been so good to her after all, unless what she wanted in place of her son was a fine bronze statue on the Common." (p. 697).The Northern forces were not the only ones to feel the sting of Foote's irony. He tells of the two quarreling Confederate calvary brigadiers who, believe it or not, engaged in a personal duel while fighting off the enemy in Arkansas in September. This was not a verbal duel; it was "pistols at ten paces to fire .." As Foote relates the death of General Walker to the gun of General Marmaduke, following this archaic code satisfied the conditions of honor "..which, presumably, was one of those things the South was fighting to preserve as part of its 'way of life' - presently, after a period of intense suffering by the loser, the Confederacy had one general less than it had had when the two men took position, ten paces apart ..." (pp. 706-707).The reader is made aware, as the book unfolds, of a trend toward a hardening on both sides to the suffering of opposing soldiers and civilians. The swapping of each others' prisoners, and releases of captured forces on "parole" (the release of groups of prisoners with the promise that they would return home and not participate in war again until the passage of a specified time) were giving way to the placing of war prisoners into crowded prisoner-of-war camps; the well-publicised refusal of General Grant to accept surrender terms and to demand "unconditional surrender" at Fort Donelson in 1862, and at Vicksburg in 1863, put an end to the formerly chivalrous sword-surrendering niceties between opposing commanding officers at the end of battles; the initial burst of patriotic fervor for the war had long since dissolved, leaving both sides with the necessity of running a military draft to replenish the losses due to battle casualties and the expiration of enlistments, with riots occurring in certain Northern cities; rioting was especially ugly in New York City.A practice developed by Grant and his chief lieutenant, General William T. Sherman, would significantly add to this gloomy picture. Grant had rediscovered the technique of Cortez and Winfield Scott in their prior conquests of Mexico. This consisted of living off the land of the enemies' citizenry instead of relying on endless delays caused by the need to build transportation networks to supply the invading force. He showed Sherman how effective this worked while they conducted their campaign in Mississippi in the spring of 1863. Later in the year, Sherman demonstrated his mastery of the methods designed to keep an invading army moving. He led an invasion force from Vicksburg, across Mississippi, with the intention of invading Selma, Alabama. Problems prevented him from reaching his final objective, causing him to turn back at Meridian, Mississippi. During the course of the campaign, however, his army destroyed Meridian (and also burned out Jackson, Mississippi, for the third time that year). His army returned to Vicksburg by a different route in order to keep the army from foraging where they already laid waste to the country. Sherman, quoting "vigorous war ... means universal destruction" (p. 937), destroyed railroads for miles in every direction, burning out and spoiling all farms and industrial infrastructure they passed. The civilian victims in this state were said to be left with the stunned look of disaster survivors, while Sherman boasted of having created a fifty-mile-wide belt of destruction across Mississippi. Grant and Sherman were at this time (February-March, 1864) planning on invading Georgia, using these techniques.The stage was therefore set for the destruction which would be unleashed on the South in 1864-65. The Union army was ready to march. Politically, the leaders on both sides were committed to fighting to the end. Any possibility that existed previously for a truce or for foreign powers, namely Britain and France, to force an arbitrated peace, were long gone. Too many lives had been lost by this time to stop the war short of total victory. Those who Foote calls the Jacobins in the North would have Lincoln's head if he showed restraint now, and they were already agitating for imposition of harsh rule for the eleven rebellious states when the war ended. Their plan was for the Southern states to be placed under military governors answerable directly to the President. Lincoln, in order to dispel some of their influence while he used his dwindling energies to run the war, issued a tentative Reconstruction Proclamation as part of his year-end message to Congress. He proposed to offer amnesty to Southerners who would, after the war, take an oath of loyalty to the federal government and support the Emancipation Proclamation. Each rebellious state would be admitted back into the Union when one-tenth of the state's 1860 voters had taken the oath.Not only did news of this Proclamation not soften hearts in the rebellious states, but it led to a firestorm of condemnation. Lincoln's Southern critics had reminded their citizenry that this President had earlier fired General Fremont, commander of the occupying Union forces in Missouri, for declaring that state's slaves emancipated without consultation with his superiors or with the White House, where Lincoln was holding off on issuing his Emancipation Proclamation at the time. Worse yet, Lincoln had described Fremont's methods of military proclamation to be tantamount to setting up a military dictatorship in the conquered state, exactly what he was accused of proposing in December, 1863 (actually, he was offering amnesty to the conquered peoples and proposing certain reconstruction guidelines designed to restore the Union). Lincoln's Southern newspaper detractors took instant, violent offense to the notion that they should ask forgiveness for anything. The Confederate forces would continue to be urged to fight to their last drop of blood.
For those who thoroughly enjoyed the Ken Burns masterpiece, THE CIVIL WAR, and thought that they now knew everything about The War Between the States, Shelby Foote has created a fascinating, in-depth view that tells the rest of the story...and the rest of the story is quite considerable. I suspect that many may find the length of this trilogy daunting, but it is anything but dull.In many ways, this reminds me of what Truman Capote accomplished with IN COLD BLOOD. Foote tells the stories behind the battles, politics, and the personal events without a footnote in sight. It unfolds as a narrative...indeed, I could often "hear" his voice as I continued my reading journey. This is an immersive work, providing such a level of detail regarding the people and the events that I was there with them...looking over their shoulders, if you will.Many people who are casually familiar with the historical events will likely think that the battle at Gettysburg awaits in the third volume, but it is here. And, as amazing as it was, it wasn't the most memorable event in this book.Foote has a talent of interjecting a perspective that harkens back to the best of storytelling. It is often the "little" moments, the stray comment from a soldier about to go into battle...or Lincoln recovering from a bout with smallpox-like symptoms...that stands out afterward.Of special interest for me were the political intrigues, from generals who plotted against one another, to the besieged Presidents who faced surprisingly similar challenges (other than winning). When the book is finished, the reader has no doubt what went on in the minds of the participants, and has a healthy respect for the terrible events that rocked America.I give this my highest recommendation.
What do You think about The Civil War, Vol. 2: Fredericksburg To Meridian (1986)?
As we finished the second volume in this trilogy on the Civil War I wondered who/what I am most amazed by: the War in all its many complexities which tore our nation apart, the man who wrote this book over 50 years ago when he was still in his 40s, or the incredible people (north and south) who fought, struggled, suffered and died for so many different reasons. The author, Shelby Foote, who died in 2005, believed that this war was central to us as Americans. As my husband and I listened to this book we could see so many issues (states’ rights v. federal control; presidential power during national emergencies; honest v. corrupt media; suspension of habeas corpus to name just a few) which are as relevant today as they were then.There are those who claim Mr. Foote—as a southerner—wrote his narrative with a southern bias. That might be, I’m not enough of a historian to comment on the accuracy of his book. However, if that was his objective, after having listened to the first two volumes twice now and the third once, he has not managed to convince me of ‘the southern cause’. Rather I still see the war from a perspective of an American who deeply loves all of her country: black, white, north, south, male, female, etc., which is how it seems (to me) the author has presented the story, from the perspective of whoever he was writing about at the time and/or the on-scene observer. His objectivity in telling this story is only compromised by his humanity and empathy. I can forgive him that.There are so many things about this book which I like: it’s narrative flow, detailed descriptions of the times and people, humorous anecdotes, comparisons between north and south, Lincoln and Davis, Grant and Lee, etc. Foote is not afraid to point out character flaws (such as Generals Bragg and McClellan) or where commonly-held opinions (Grant being an alcoholic) are not substantiated by the available evidence. Excellent! Can’t wait to start the third volume ... although I know it will be hard to get through because of all the tragedies.
—booklady
In this second of three volumes, Foote follows up with another excellent history. As with the first installment, this could be subtitled as a case study for the fog and friction of war, as both Union and Confederate commanders blunder through engagement after engagement. As such, this volume contains two of the biggest upsets of the war: Lee at Gettysburg and Rosecrans at Chickamauga. Foote details both the personalities and the engagements of this portion of the war in excellent detail and in a wonderfully readable narrative style, accompanied by useful maps.While maintaining a good balance between Union and Confederate perspectives, this volume contains an overarching narrative (intentional or otherwise) of the rise of U.S. Grant during the Vicksburg campaign. This meta-narrative also provides a fun insight into the importance of critical reading of primary sources, as Foote highlights the sometimes-stark differences between historical facts and those provided by Grant in his post-war memoirs.
—Joshua
I enjoyed this book much more than the first in the series. Admittedly, I was most captivated by the sections on Vicksburg and Gettysburg, with Sherman's rampage to/of Meridian. I'd love to see more detail about Gettysburg, perhaps an animated storyline, showing where/how troops moved and attempted/accomplished what objectives. At Vicksburg I could feel the patience of Grant, and the peril of Pemberton and his besieged army within the city. Additionally, the swath of destruction caused by Sherman through the south still comes across as cold and heartless, though fixed determinately on ending a rebellion.This has been a very enlightening series, and gives far more perspective than our history books generally convey. Although I empathize with the South and their desire to just be left alone, my heart remains with the North and their desire for unity and doing away with a horrible practice. I can only imagine how the War would have been different had Lee been part of the Union. I admire his aggressiveness, perseverance, and ingenuity, though pity his opinion on slavery. My real hero is Lincoln, who I find the most fascinating. I need to find a good book about him for after this series.I now better understand the plight of both sides at different points, and I'm afraid to venture into the final installment in this series, since I know things don't end well for one side. Although I ultimately disagree with their practices, I can only imagine I'd feel like a conquered nation, somehow inferior... nobody wants to feel that way.To cover four years with 2976 pages for the full trilogy, Foote's breadth and depth are impressive, and help give a great taste to practically every event in the war. I'd favor more natural breaks in the story, but when it comes to narrating history this thoroughly, you have to play the hand you're dealt. This compilation of feints is not for the faint of heart.
—Pedro
