Member Review Jay Winik, April 1865

[SSVilla]

April 1865

#1 New York Times Bestseller: A modern classic of American history that “vividly re-creates the last days of the Civil War . . . fascinating” (The Washington Post). One month in 1865 witnessed the frenzied fall of Richmond, a daring last-ditch Southern plan for guerrilla warfare, Lee’s harrowing...

share.libbyapp.com

This is really just impressions, not so much a review, but I didn't want to clutter the "books we are reading" thread with comments on books we are reading, or have recently read, and perhaps others have read this book as well and want to comment.

I was oddly surprised by this book, in an unexpected way. To start the book is extremely sympathetic to the confederacy. There are even some tropes in there but if you read the book you'll come across them without me pointing them out and also I don't want to run the risk of inserting my own biases here if you don't see them and it's just me. But it is overall very sympathetic to the Southern POV. About half way I even had to look up the author because I didn't know him previously and was reading the book on a recommendation without knowing what to expect. I was unsure exactly how this book would turn out but it's popular, I knew it won prizes, etc. Therefore I persevered. I looked up the author, and he was born in Connecticut and went to Yale. He also was an advisor to Clinton. I thought "this is an odd book," but pushed on. In some reviews I saw that since the author is not a specialist in civil war history it shows in places. I think I see it in the aforementioned tropes I perceived but I indulged him.

In the end, I really liked it, not for a specific account here or there, and it's not like it taught me any new facts about a specific event. The whole book is about perspective. It made me appreciate the actions of several key players in April 1865 by presenting them in a new light, specifically considering the options available to different individuals involved. There are brief biographies and accounts of personality and events for the key characters and the author also looks sideways and even further back into the past to the history of wars, particularly when he discusses the possibility of continuing the conflict through guerrillas.

His point is that things didn't necessarily have to end the way they did and could have ended much worse. His background and involvement as advisor in political conflicts and wars of the XX C gave him a unique perspective, which he sought to share. He appreciated that the confederacy in April 1865 had few and poor options, but they were nevertheless options and to understand that point he's very forgiving and sympathetic to all the confederate main characters. Concerning some of them, I dare say he wrote in an admiring way.

In spite of my initial, or rather early mid reaction to the book, the author ended up adding greatly to my appreciation for how things ended up. Most unexpected of all, I came to appreciate the Lee and Johnson surrenders, specially Johnson who defied Jefferson Davis to surrender peacefully when he knew nothing good could be accomplished but further waste of life and property at that point. Jeff Davis would have continued sacrificing everyone and he was such a stubborn man. I imagine many within the confederacy tried to persuade him to settle and couldn't move him one inch. That I wish the author would have explored further to be honest and I may just end up looking into this now because I am intrigued.

Lee I have always felt could have done more, but seeing things from his side of the equation as this book does, I have come to understand the magnetic example he set.

Lately I have been reading books that vary from my original perspectives and this book ended up adding new layers to my understanding. I am grateful to the person who recommended it and I also recommend it forward. But if you do read it, you have to read it all the way until the last page.

 

[JeffBrooks]

I did not like how a fair chunk of the text was lifted more or less directly from the Ken Burns documentary. I don't have the book in front of me right now, but I recall Winik describing Lee by saying "after he drove McClellan off the Peninsula, stopped Pope at Second Manassas, demolished Burnside at Fredericksburg, and destroyed Hooker at Chancellorsville..." which is almost word-for-word what the script of the Burns documentary has.

It's been years since I read it, but I remember encountering lots of this kind of thing in the book. I have always wondered why other people had never commented on it.

 

[TallTallMan]

April 1865

#1 New York Times Bestseller: A modern classic of American history that “vividly re-creates the last days of the Civil War . . . fascinating” (The Washington Post). One month in 1865 witnessed the frenzied fall of Richmond, a daring last-ditch Southern plan for guerrilla warfare, Lee’s harrowing...

share.libbyapp.com

This is really just impressions, not so much a review, but I didn't want to clutter the "books we are reading" thread with comments on books we are reading, or have recently read, and perhaps others have read this book as well and want to comment.

I was oddly surprised by this book, in an unexpected way. To start the book is extremely sympathetic to the confederacy. There are even some tropes in there but if you read the book you'll come across them without me pointing them out and also I don't want to run the risk of inserting my own biases here if you don't see them and it's just me. But it is overall very sympathetic to the Southern POV. About half way I even had to look up the author because I didn't know him previously and was reading the book on a recommendation without knowing what to expect. I was unsure exactly how this book would turn out but it's popular, I knew it won prizes, etc. Therefore I persevered. I looked up the author, and he was born in Connecticut and went to Yale. He also was an advisor to Clinton. I thought "this is an odd book," but pushed on. In some reviews I saw that since the author is not a specialist in civil war history it shows in places. I think I see it in the aforementioned tropes I perceived but I indulged him.

In the end, I really liked it, not for a specific account here or there, and it's not like it taught me any new facts about a specific event. The whole book is about perspective. It made me appreciate the actions of several key players in April 1865 by presenting them in a new light, specifically considering the options available to different individuals involved. There are brief biographies and accounts of personality and events for the key characters and the author also looks sideways and even further back into the past to the history of wars, particularly when he discusses the possibility of continuing the conflict through guerrillas.

His point is that things didn't necessarily have to end the way they did and could have ended much worse. His background and involvement as advisor in political conflicts and wars of the XX C gave him a unique perspective, which he sought to share. He appreciated that the confederacy in April 1865 had few and poor options, but they were nevertheless options and to understand that point he's very forgiving and sympathetic to all the confederate main characters. Concerning some of them, I dare say he wrote in an admiring way.

In spite of my initial, or rather early mid reaction to the book, the author ended up adding greatly to my appreciation for how things ended up. Most unexpected of all, I came to appreciate the Lee and Johnson surrenders, specially Johnson who defied Jefferson Davis to surrender peacefully when he knew nothing good could be accomplished but further waste of life and property at that point. Jeff Davis would have continued sacrificing everyone and he was such a stubborn man. I imagine many within the confederacy tried to persuade him to settle and couldn't move him one inch. That I wish the author would have explored further to be honest and I may just end up looking into this now because I am intrigued.

Lee I have always felt could have done more, but seeing things from his side of the equation as this book does, I have come to understand the magnetic example he set.

Lately I have been reading books that vary from my original perspectives and this book ended up adding new layers to my understanding. I am grateful to the person who recommended it and I also recommend it forward. But if you do read it, you have to read it all the way until the last page.

Never read it, but always wanted to! Supposed to be error-filled, hence your "specialist" comment

 

[SSVilla]

I did not like how a fair chunk of the text was lifted more or less directly from the Ken Burns documentary. I don't have the book in front of me right now, but I recall Winik describing Lee by saying "after he drove McClellan off the Peninsula, stopped Pope at Second Manassas, demolished Burnside at Fredericksburg, and destroyed Hooker at Chancellorsville..." which is almost word-for-word what the script of the Burns documentary has.

It's been years since I read it, but I remember encountering lots of this kind of thing in the book. I have always wondered why other people had never commented on it.

I have only watched that documentary once and the perspectives felt dated to me. I benefited from having watched it but I wouldn't watch it again. I'd give it mixed reviews. That probably says something about me and my tastes because someone else may love it, but that's fine we all have our preferences and tastes.

I noticed his use of tropes and I am not even a historian, I just happened to have read enough to differ on some things I suppose, and to have seen different perspectives from different historians as well, so that I knew some things are subjective. But perhaps what I termed "tropes" is actually this "lifting" you refer to. I wouldn't have been able to put it that way, but it did seem familiar…

That's the reason why ultimately for me the value wasn't in any of the factual accounts he brought but the point he tried to make in the end. The thought of how wars end and how that influences whether they recur is where I thought the author contributed something for me.

 

[SSVilla]

Never read it, but always wanted to! Supposed to be error-filled, hence your "specialist" comment

Read it. I am sure you'll notice things as well, maybe not even necessarily the same ones as me! I wasn't looking at notes or anything of the sort, and there were parts that I just really had to push through… He was extremely sympathetic to the South to start and I thought I was reading a more balanced account…. But his overall point couldn't have been presented as effectively without using that strategy I think.

He stated that such a war as the one from 1861-65 leaves behind such bitterness of feelings that they inevitably recur, and generations afterwards then come up with the same grievances to make war again, and then adding their own flavor and their new grievances on top of old ones, so that the whole thing is never ending. The ACW was remarkable in how it ended, and as much as any other reason, how it ended influenced the peace afterwards. That's basically his point…

I liked the book but it's not without its flaws. Isn't that the same with every book now? lol

 

[TallTallMan]

Read it. I am sure you'll notice things as well, maybe not even necessarily the same ones as me! I wasn't looking at notes or anything of the sort, and there were parts that I just really had to push through… He was extremely sympathetic to the South to start and I thought I was reading a more balanced account…. But his overall point of view couldn't have been presented as effectively without using that strategy I think.

He stated that such a war as the one from 1861-65 leaves behind such bitterness of feelings that they inevitably recur, and generations afterwards then come up with the same grievances to make war again, and then adding their own flavor and their new grievances on top of old ones, so that the whole thing is never ending. The ACW was remarkable in how it ended, and as much as any other reason, how it ended influenced the peace afterwards. That's basically his point…

I liked the book but it's not without its flaws. Isn't that the same with every book now? lol

Thanks! I'm glad the ACW ended without widespread,violent bitterness, even though, per Neo-Confederates, I live in a "conquered province"!

 

[SSVilla]

To be fair he credited Grant and Lincoln for the generous surrender terms, it's not one sided, but he started with the Southern perspective and spent a good portion of his efforts there.

 

[jackt62]

It's been years since I read this book so I can't comment on the specifics mentioned. I do seem to recall that it gave a fairly good telling of the war's final weeks.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I recall it being interesting but meandering. A good concept and thought-provoking, but in need of further editorial revision.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Recall what resonates for me from reading Winik's work, was his focus on praising Lee for steadfastly not endorsing or condoning the real prospect presented during April, '65 of continuing 'guerrilla warfare' to prolong the struggle. Winik notably says (pp. 194-95), that Lee's General Orders Number 9 was distinguished as being so important, not just for the intrinsic quality of its written prose, but also for what it doesn't say. (Lee's refusal/rejection occurred in the context of a fleeing Davis at the time openly espousing this mode of irregular warfare, and Lee receiving sought advice on the morning of the surrender from the normally astute E. P. Alexander that his preferred choice of action was for troops to scatter into the wild and make their way back to their respective own states to conduct irregular warfare locally, in order to delay the conflict and force favorable terms.)

(Saw Lee's rejection outright of Alexander's proposal to continue with state-based resistance as being somewhat ironic, given four years earlier the former had chosen to prioritize his duty to his native state and thereby support the doctrine of states' rights. Lee seemingly had been transformed in his views of the Union and the nation).

 

[Georgia Sixth]

An easy read for this period is "The Long Surrender" by Burke Davis, covering the flight of Jeff Davis from the fall of Richmond. His struggle to continue the war is captured well and has a great account of his final council of war with Joe Johnston, Beauregard and Breckinridge. Those three are massively overlooked for their, essentially, mutinous refusal to carry out Davis' orders.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

An easy read for this period is "The Long Surrender" by Burke Davis, covering the flight of Jeff Davis from the fall of Richmond. His struggle to continue the war is captured well and has a great account of his final council of war with Joe Johnston, Beauregard and Breckinridge. Those three are massively overlooked for their, essentially, mutinous refusal to carry out Davis' orders.

Flight Into Oblivion is also a good book on the subject, though its focus is on the experience of various escapees rather than Davis' bigger picture.

I have read (I forget where) that when Breckenridge was appointed Secretary of War, he saw right through Davis' delusions and realized the war had become hopeless for the Confederacy. He quietly took steps accordingly.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I have read (I forget where) that when Breckenridge was appointed Secretary of War, he saw right through Davis' delusions and realized the war had become hopeless for the Confederacy. He quietly took steps accordingly.

Always considered Breckinridge's leadership abilities (both militarily and politically) were underutilized by the Confederacy through the conflict.

It was not until the closing months in the final year of the war, when it was too late, that his leadership abilities were put to good use. Firstly, as Secretary of War (after being appointed on Feb. 6), he took active steps to reorganize the Confederate war bureaucracy and preserve Confederate archives and records for posterity, as well as to oversee the destruction of facilities and bridges during the evacuation of Richmond on Apr. 2.

Believe it was as early as late Feb. '65, when Breckinridge initially formed a solid view that the situation was hopeless and the Confederacy would be defeated. Following Lee's surrender on Apr. 9, when Breckinridge arrived in Greensboro, NC, on Apr. 13, he conferred with Johnston and Beauregard about the situation. The three generals, as well as all members of the travelling Confederate cabinet (except for Benjamin), recommended Confederate surrender to Davis, but Davis rejected the recommendation and resolved to press on. Yet despite Davis's rejection, Breckinridge continued to exert able leadership by assisting Johnston in his surrender negotiations woth Sherman (Apr. 18), then was put in charge of the escort guarding Davis and the remainder of the Confederate Treasury during May, until Davis was captured on May 10. (The next day, after hearing of Davis's capture, Breckinridge decided to flee the country).

 

[Nathan Stuart]

An easy read for this period is "The Long Surrender" by Burke Davis, covering the flight of Jeff Davis from the fall of Richmond. His struggle to continue the war is captured well and has a great account of his final council of war with Joe Johnston, Beauregard and Breckinridge. Those three are massively overlooked for their, essentially, mutinous refusal to carry out Davis' orders.

Thanks for the tip on 'The Long Surrender' by Burke Davis. Might read it next. (Previously read another Davis work, 'Sherman's March', and found the coverage comprehensive and informative.)

 

[Library Lady]

Thanks for the tip on 'The Long Surrender' by Burke Davis. Might read it next. (Previously read another Davis work, 'Sherman's March', and found the coverage comprehensive and informative.)

You might also like Burke Davis' To Appomattox: Nine April Days, 1865. It's very accessible and very interesting. This is how I got introduced to Burke Davis.

 

[Stryker65]

Some other books:
The Last Days of the Confederacy by A. A. Hoehling, about the fall of Richmond
An Honorable Defeat by William C. Davis, about the CS government's flight from Richmond
And, tangentially related, Caroline E. Janney's Ends of War about Lee's army after Appomattox.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

You might also like Burke Davis' To Appomattox: Nine April Days, 1865. It's very accessible and very interesting. This is how I got introduced to Burke Davis.

Thanks for the additional suggestion. Might consider this title. (I've read Noah Trudeau's trilogy of titles covering the period from June, '64 to June, '65, and found this author's chronological recording of events to be conducive for easier referencing. Thought his work, 'Out of the Storm: April -June, '65', might adequately cover those first nine days of April for me).

 

[SSVilla]

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions of new books about the topic. Before this particular book, I had seen a lecture from William C. Davis here

[An Honorable Defeat: The Last Days of the Confederate Government]

Professor William Davis talked about his book, [An Honorable Defeat: The Last Days of the Confederate Government]. Professor Davis said the leaders of the Confederacy knew that defeat was imminent long before General Lee surrendered at Appomattox. John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, the...

www.c-span.org

I have read Crucible of Command from Davis and having watched this one and other lectures form him, I am adding him to my future to read lists.

 

[Library Lady]

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions of new books about the topic. Before this particular book, I had seen a lecture from William C. Davis here

[An Honorable Defeat: The Last Days of the Confederate Government]

Professor William Davis talked about his book, [An Honorable Defeat: The Last Days of the Confederate Government]. Professor Davis said the leaders of the Confederacy knew that defeat was imminent long before General Lee surrendered at Appomattox. John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, the...

www.c-span.org

I have read Crucible of Command from Davis and having watched this one and other lectures form him, I am adding him to my future to read lists.

If you don't have it already/haven't read it already, you'll probably want to add Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America to that list.

Amazon.com