The parallels between this time period and today are chilling. Catton writes about the turmoil following John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry to the first battle of Manassas (Bull Run). It details the process in which Americans fought each other because of greed and a lack of understanding of the other side. To be sure, slavery was THE reason for the civil war. Some doubters or southern apologists will consistently mention States Rights as the cause, but THE state right the south was so upset about was slavery, pure and simple. As slavery was slowly dying as an institution in all but a few states and its expansion west was totally unpractical, those planters in the rich south attempted to turn the debate into one about southern pride and an agrarian, pure way of life. For the most part this strategy worked. "Enslaved, the Negro was under control and so was the race problem. But if he should be freed, en masse, all across America, he would have to be dealt with as a human being, and a nation whose declaration of independence began by asserting that all men were created equal would have to make up its mind whether those words were to be taken seriously." p. 86. Some of the things that continue to surprise me is how reluctantly many states in the south seceded. Huge numbers of counties in Virginia almost immediately seceded from Virginia to form WV (somehow now a place where the confederacy is glorified with mythology). Eastern Tenn consistently go word to DC that they wanted armed federal troops so they could do the same. In March, Arkansas rejected secession 39-35. It wasn't until the firing on Ft. Sumter that Lincoln's actions were twisted to show him as the aggressor that they voted to secede. However, Baltimore had to be invaded and held so secessionists there didn't feel emboldened. South Carolina and the other deep south cotton states were paranoid of Lincoln's election to office. They completely misunderstood Lincoln's philosophy and view of slavery. He continued to be willing to negotiate slavery's continued existence well into the war if only it would preserve the union and prevent war. Lincoln believed slavery should not move above the Missouri compromise line of 1854 (I believe). He was willing to follow laws, upheld by the Supreme Court, that forced northern states to return runaway slaves when found above that line. The charges that Lincoln was a "Black Republican" (regardless of what kind of fear this term was designed to plant) and an abolitionist are simply not true. A more mythologized version of Lincoln would be that he had designs to "subjugate" the south, push for abolishing slavery, and racial equality. This type of southern paranoia is fairly common today surrounding different issues, an actual "black" president trying to end America as we know it by extending health care to its poorest citizens is just one example. Is it "Obamacare" or the Affordable Care Act? That depends who's speaking about it. Here's the chilling part, "Politics had lost its flexibility, and the loss reflected grass roots sentiment. Too many leaders had dug in for a last ditch stand, whether for principle or political profit and although it was increasingly clear that the result was likely to be disastrous, everybody felt that the necessary concessions ought to be made by someone else." Is this 2013 or 1860?Once war got rolling many of his Union generals used labor of former slaves behind Union lines. These were escaped slaves that the south demanded they be returned. However, in times of war, if they were to be considered "property", then slaves could legally be seized as contraband. Most runaway slaves were more than pleased to be considered such if it meant not being returned to a life in the south. Also, the run up to the war showed that an extreme wing of a political party can hijack the country over a single issue and force those with more moderate views to acquiesce due to pressures from emotionally charged constituencies. (shutting the federal government?)It is driven home with this book, in addition to others, that the Confederate states had really zero chance of gaining the independence that they wanted. Once the extreme faction of the party won out in each state and the demands became so absurd (the handover of all federal possessions: guns, forts, land, shipyards), the federal government wasn't going to give in. They knew they had the machinery in place for a long protracted war if that's what it came down to. Over and over through the book it shows that the industrial might the south needed was nonexistent and that all the tools, machines, wagons, and weapons needed to sustain a rebellion were made in the North. The hypocrisy for the south knew no bounds. Even after the war started they demanded that the Federal constitution be followed in regards to their treatment from the north (mostly in retrieval of slaves and blockades of the coast). How could states declare independence and then have the gall to demand equal treatment under the constitution they just dismantled? After all there were no provisions in the constitution given any state the right to secede. It was also ironic that almost the first military move the south made was the taking of Harper's Ferry, a federal arsenal when a few years prior it was taken and the perpetrators were hung in the south for treason against the state of Virginia.
Brilliant! I was in the first grade when this was published, and so naturally I missed it at the time. My attention was drawn to it as one of the few secondary sources to be referenced more than once in McPherson's historical writing. I tracked it down at my favorite used book store last summer and brought home the whole trilogy.The first big, beefy hardcover book is almost entirely devoted to the events that led up to the American Civil War. Those of us living in the US are so accustomed to a 2-party system that it is hard to wrap one's head around the fact that there were multiple parties campaigning in various regions around the USA during this exceptional period, when the cotton aristocracy that had previously ruled the US without contest from anyone else ran smack up against the Industrial Revolution and the drums of history marching forward to a place it really didn't want to go.One thing I had not realized before reading this work was that not only did the majority of Caucasian southerners not own slaves, but the majority of most states did not even favor continuing the plantation economy. Douglas campaigned for the presidency and was widely reviled among the cotton kings because he would not guarantee that slavery could continue in the territories even IF a vote were taken among its white property holders and the majority said no. Lincoln quietly worked on the sidelines telling politicians not to let themselves be trapped into calling for popular sovereignty, but in the end, it did not matter, because the ruling class of the cotton states would not bend even that far. (Interestingly, Lincoln became the Republican candidate because he had gone on record so little that it was believed he might bridge the gap between South and North; also, he was Kentucky-born. By the time the election took place, the country was so polarized that his name did not even appear on the ballot in the cotton states.)Generally speaking, as a Marxist I don't take a lot of interest in bourgeois politics. These days, Candidate A and Candidate B are generally going to do the same things, or one is the 'good cop', and the other the bad. But this was an exceptional time period. In six months, the House of Representatives was unable to elect a Speaker. Congressmen became so agitated and inflamed that there were politicians punching each other in the face and brawling while they were supposed to be in session.It became more clear to me, after reading this work, why Sherman was so determined that South Carolina would pay, and pay big, when he and his men marched northward through it after razing Atlanta. In the beginning, no state was talking about secession except South Carolina. South Carolina's legislature and governor urged other cotton states--and border states--repeatedly to convene their legislatures to consider secession. And in this unique time period, who was governor of a state took on a whole new urgency, as two governors of border states simply refused to convene the legislature, and thus kept their states within the Union. All the governors of Delaware and Maryland had to do was say no. If there had been the kind of push by their ruling classes that were present in the deep South, they might have had to do differently, but in this case, when the border states made such a huge difference, this choice was tremendously important.If you doubt this, and Catton points to it, just get a map of the USA as divided by states and look at where Washington, DC is. Had Maryland gone over with Virginia, the Capitol would have been surrounded and Lincoln held hostage. As it was, locating the Confederate capitol as close by as they did was a gutsy move. I had never realized (also) that the Battle of Bull Run (first and second, also called Manassas) was a mere 30 miles from where Lincoln sat. This book was so well written and everything laid out so clearly that I wished I had read it sooner.The choice to provision Fort Sumter was a huge ordeal. I felt sorry for Anderson, who lost his mind waiting for the Federal government to send him men, supplies, even orders. Ultimately, Lincoln chose to furnish basic provisions in order to show that every US fort was still a US fort, and nothing would be given away, but also with a cool eye cast to the world stage. Those who harrumphed down South, referring to him as an ape and decrying his lack of pomp and polish, did not understand that the American mentality was changing rapidly, that now brains would count for something, at least for awhile. Lincoln wanted Europe to see that this war began because of bread, and that is how the first blood was shed.A fascinating read for those with serious interest in the American Civil War, readable but also very detailed. I wish I had read it sooner
What do You think about The Coming Fury (2001)?
Bruce Catton is in a league of his own where Civil War histories are concerned. I learned more in the first 100 pages than I've learned from any other author for a very long time.Mr. Catton spends most of this volume (the first of a trilogy) bringing to light the events leading up to the war (the first volume ends with First Bull Run) and spends most of his efforts on explaining how we got from the election of 1860 to the fracturing of the Union to shells flying.No disrespect to the many other Civil War authors, but if you haven't read Mr. Catton's works, you've really missed out.
—Jeff
The Coming Fury is an excellent history of the antebellum period. This is not a battle volume; rather it is an astute political analysis. Catton provides excellent insight into the psychology of the period, which i have not found in any other period history. After reading the book, I understand far better the emotions and motivations of the principal actors of the day. I can also trace clear lineage (or at a minimum, parallels) to today's partisan gridlock. The stock phrase is that history repeats itself. While I don't buy that literally, the examples Catton develops in this wonderful volume certainly make me aware that history wants to repeat itself.
—Patrick Skelly
I think I would have enjoyed this a lot more if I had been able to devote the time to it that it deserves. As it is, I had to read it in very piecemeal sections over three weeks, and by the end I just wasn't enjoying it as much anymore. However, when I did get a chance to read it, I loved the writing style, which makes you feel like you are reading a narrative rather than a dry piece of nonfiction. I also loved how Catton's stunningly detailed account allows readers to closely examine every factor that resulted in the Civil War, debunking several commonly held, oversimplified paradigms of history by doing so.
—Mary
