Member Review The Union War by Gary Gallagher

[JerryD]

The Union War by Garry Gallagher is a nice, short read that is primarily an effort by Gallagher to push back against new fangled theories about the war. In particular Gallagher identifies two strains of recent scholarship that he wants to take to task: 1. That the Union of 1860 was hardly worth defending at the cost of war, and 2. that a major shift in war aims occurred when northerners realized that only emancipation made their sacrifice worthwhile.

On the first strain, Gallagher identifies a few authors who I would characterize as exhibiting presentism in their scholarship; they were using 21st century sensibilities to judge 19th century actions. As you would expect, Gallagher easily dispatches this strain by merely quoting some of the ridiculous claims these authors make. Closely connected with this strain is Gallagher's puncturing of some scholar's comments about the lack of USCT troops in the Grand Review as evidence of racism, when in fact there were no USCT troops in the two armies that marched during the Review and USCT troops had been given a prominent role in the funeral of Lincoln.

Its on the second strain where Gallagher does most of his heavy lifting. He does an excellent job looking at contemporary sources that make clear that the primary war aim throughout the war, and even afterwards, was preservation of the Union. He acknowledges that as the war progressed many viewed emancipation as a useful tool to achieve the desired result. Many also felt that eradication of slavery was necessary to make sure the threat of disunion due to slavery would not re-occur. But both of these attitudes was in furtherance of the primary goal of Union. Of course, Gallagher does acknowledge that a minority in the north wanted emancipation to be a major war aim, but they were just that; a minority. I thought it was very telling when Gallagher looked at the inscriptions on USA memorials erected even decades after the war, in which references to the sacrifice for Union are prevalent and few memorials make any reference to emancipation.

If I have any quibble of complaint its only that I think sometimes Gallagher misconstrues some scholars arguments that emancipation was an important result of the war, which it clearly was, as meaning that emancipation was a war aim at the time. It clearly can be true that emancipation was not a major war aim AND emancipation was a major result of the war. Other than that it was an excellent read, especially if you are not a fan of recent revisionist history that seeks to twist the war's meanings to meet 21st century sensibilities.

 

[TallTallMan]

If I have any quibble of complaint its only that I think sometimes Gallagher misconstrues some scholars arguments that emancipation was an important result of the war, which it clearly was, as meaning that emancipation was a war aim at the time. It clearly can be true that emancipation was not a major war aim AND emancipation was a major result of the war. Other than that it was an excellent read, especially if you are not a fan of recent revisionist history that seeks to twist the war's meanings to meet 21st century sensibilities.

And that is the sole reason I trust and admire Gallagher. He gives us history, not his politics.

Great review, BTW!

 

[jackt62]

He does an excellent job looking at contemporary sources that make clear that the primary war aim throughout the war, and even afterwards, was preservation of the Union. He acknowledges that as the war progressed many viewed emancipation as a useful tool to achieve the desired result. Many also felt that eradication of slavery was necessary to make sure the threat of disunion due to slavery would not re-occur. But both of these attitudes was in furtherance of the primary goal of Union. Of course, Gallagher does acknowledge that a minority in the north wanted emancipation to be a major war aim, but they were just that; a minority

No question that preserving and reuniting the Union was the primary aim of the Lincoln administration and the north. Lincoln himself famously affirmed his position for retaining slavery if that was the price for reunion. But it slowly became apparent that the millions of bonds-people were non-willing contributors to the southern war effort, thereby introducing a military rationale for targeting slavery. Hence, the Confiscation Acts and the Emancipation Proclamation, while seemingly initiating a new war aim, were simply creative means to defeat the Confederacy and assist the north in achieving its primary aim. That being said, by November 1863 Lincoln astutely hoped that true emancipation (a "new birth of freedom") would be a consequence of the Confederacy's destruction. So if that's Gallagher's thesis, then I agree.

 

[JerryD]

No question that preserving and reuniting the Union was the primary aim of the Lincoln administration and the north. Lincoln himself famously affirmed his position for retaining slavery if that was the price for reunion. But it slowly became apparent that the millions of bonds-people were non-willing contributors to the southern war effort, thereby introducing a military rationale for targeting slavery. Hence, the Confiscation Acts and the Emancipation Proclamation, while seemingly initiating a new war aim, were simply creative means to defeat the Confederacy and assist the north in achieving its primary aim. That being said, by November 1863 Lincoln astutely hoped that true emancipation (a "new birth of freedom") would be a consequence of the Confederacy's destruction. So if that's Gallagher's thesis, then I agree.

Gallagher would argue, and I think he is probably right, that Union was always the primary war aim, but that as the war ground on emancipation was seen as a tactic to help win the war. Then, only later, that most viewed that it was necessary after victory to eradicate slavery to prevent a future conflict that threatened Union, since slavery was the cause of the war and no one wanted to leave the cause in place and risk a future conflict. I thought it was telling, though, how Gallagher looked at inscriptions on memorials to the war and how they often mentioned the sacrifice for preserving the Union, but rarely touted emancipation. This is pretty good evidence, he argues (and I agree), that the war generation saw Union as the real goal.

 

[LCYingling3rd]

The Union War by Garry Gallagher is a nice, short read that is primarily an effort by Gallagher to push back against new fangled theories about the war. In particular Gallagher identifies two strains of recent scholarship that he wants to take to task: 1. That the Union of 1860 was hardly worth defending at the cost of war, and 2. that a major shift in war aims occurred when northerners realized that only emancipation made their sacrifice worthwhile.

On the first strain, Gallagher identifies a few authors who I would characterize as exhibiting presentism in their scholarship; they were using 21st century sensibilities to judge 19th century actions. As you would expect, Gallagher easily dispatches this strain by merely quoting some of the ridiculous claims these authors make. Closely connected with this strain is Gallagher's puncturing of some scholar's comments about the lack of USCT troops in the Grand Review as evidence of racism, when in fact there were no USCT troops in the two armies that marched during the Review and USCT troops had been given a prominent role in the funeral of Lincoln.

Its on the second strain where Gallagher does most of his heavy lifting. He does an excellent job looking at contemporary sources that make clear that the primary war aim throughout the war, and even afterwards, was preservation of the Union. He acknowledges that as the war progressed many viewed emancipation as a useful tool to achieve the desired result. Many also felt that eradication of slavery was necessary to make sure the threat of disunion due to slavery would not re-occur. But both of these attitudes was in furtherance of the primary goal of Union. Of course, Gallagher does acknowledge that a minority in the north wanted emancipation to be a major war aim, but they were just that; a minority. I thought it was very telling when Gallagher looked at the inscriptions on USA memorials erected even decades after the war, in which references to the sacrifice for Union are prevalent and few memorials make any reference to emancipation.

If I have any quibble of complaint its only that I think sometimes Gallagher misconstrues some scholars arguments that emancipation was an important result of the war, which it clearly was, as meaning that emancipation was a war aim at the time. It clearly can be true that emancipation was not a major war aim AND emancipation was a major result of the war. Other than that it was an excellent read, especially if you are not a fan of recent revisionist history that seeks to twist the war's meanings to meet 21st century sensibilities.

Thank you for the very good review. He is certainly one of my favorite historians!

 

[Richard Appledorf]

During the Ken Burns series, historian Barbara Fields said that without emancipation the war would have been "meaningless carnage". I imagine many white federal soldiers would have disagreed. Many soldiers in black units would probably be more sympathetic to that view.

 

[JerryD]

During the Ken Burns series, historian Barbara Fields said that without emancipation the war would have been "meaningless carnage". I imagine many white federal soldiers would have disagreed. Many soldiers in black units would probably be more sympathetic to that view.

For those who do not like Fields, she was one of Gallagher's targets in the book. And he specifically disputed this point. Personally, I am very thankful to those soldiers who fought to maintain the unified US that we enjoy today.

 

[JackADriscoll]

War is one of those things that the combatants assign meaning to after it's over. It's like that trope everything happens for a reason. It does but you'll find a reason after. Hard to deal with it any other way

 

[TallTallMan]

During the Ken Burns series, historian Barbara Fields said that without emancipation the war would have been "meaningless carnage". I imagine many white federal soldiers would have disagreed. Many soldiers in black units would probably be more sympathetic to that view.

Barbera Fields has a Presentistic one-track mind in regard to that.

 

[Prairie State Yank]

I find Gary Gallagher to be among the most clear-headed historians on the Civil War.

 

[LCYingling3rd]

Professor Gallagher makes these points and more in his book, "Causes, Won, Lost, and Forgotten;" which is about how movies and art influence our understanding of the war. He lists the four primary "cause traditions," as he calls them, as the "Lost Cause," the "Reconciliationist Cause," the "Emancipationist Cause," and the "Union Cause." Of the four, he shows how the Union cause is the most accurate explanation of the pre-war reason many fought and yet, it is the least espoused. It is fascinating how so few modern Americans understand how important the idea of Union was, and still should be!

I only have a few of his books and do like them all. I like both "The Union War," and "The Confederate War." He has written and edited so many that it is hard to decide which to get. That is why reviews like this are helpful.

 

[SSVilla]

No question that preserving and reuniting the Union was the primary aim of the Lincoln administration and the north. Lincoln himself famously affirmed his position for retaining slavery if that was the price for reunion. But it slowly became apparent that the millions of bonds-people were non-willing contributors to the southern war effort, thereby introducing a military rationale for targeting slavery. Hence, the Confiscation Acts and the Emancipation Proclamation, while seemingly initiating a new war aim, were simply creative means to defeat the Confederacy and assist the north in achieving its primary aim. That being said, by November 1863 Lincoln astutely hoped that true emancipation (a "new birth of freedom") would be a consequence of the Confederacy's destruction. So if that's Gallagher's thesis, then I agree.

There's a famous letter (for me) where Grant told Washburne I believe that the entire U.S. Army would not be sufficient to maintain slavery in 1863 and that nothing could give back to the South what they lost… Grant was also writing in private letters as early as 1861, that slaves were already stampeding in Missouri in every direction, except the South… I think at some point and relatively early, it just became obvious slavery and war don't get along. Recall also McClellan's efforts to avoid having to deal with the slavery issue before the Emancipation Proclamation.

Regardless of whatever anyone wanted to say politically, war brings about a certain state of lawlessness and chaos that made slavery unsustainable. I have actually heard from Gallagher that is why he completely understood that guerrilla systems of warfare like Vietnam wouldn't have worked out for a society as hierarchical and stratified as the South of the middle 1800's. I think Gallagher is actually emphasizing the fact that the Union as a war aim and the main reason for the war is forgotten… and it is.

I have learned a lot in that respect, not just from Gallagher but because I always thought before I was interested in this subject, that the Union side of the history was underrepresented. I couldn't have articulated it in this way, but what drew me initially to research and learn about the civil war was that I was curious about the Union. Meanwhile the Southern cause and Lee were so predominant in media. I wanted to learn about the Union cause. Then I found Gallagher and he could completely articulate something I was feeling.

 

[SSVilla]

Thanks for this review btw @JerryD

 

[SWS]

Check-out Dave Powell's investigative post into the post-Emancipation Proclamation "political bloodbath" among the officers in the 81st Indiana, my ancestral regiment (and the AotC in microcosm), and Don Monroe's posts in the comments expanding on the question.

Small mysteries: the 81st Indiana

In first reading Peter Cozzens’ work, This Terrible Sound, I was struck by the role the 81st Indiana played on September 19th, in Viniard Field. Brigadier General William Carlin assigned Majo…

chickamaugablog.wordpress.com

Robert E. Hunt, author of The Good Men Who Won the War: Army of the Cumberland Veterans and Emancipation Memory, "contends that rather than remembering the war as a crusade against the evils of slavery, the veterans of the Army of the Cumberland saw the end of slavery as a by-product of the necessary defeat of the planter aristocracy that had sundered the Union; a good and necessary outcome, but not necessarily an assertion of equality between the races."

 

[JD-reb]

For those who do not like Fields, she was one of Gallagher's targets in the book. And he specifically disputed this point. Personally, I am very thankful to those soldiers who fought to maintain the unified US that we enjoy today.

Who were some of the other authors targeted by Gallagher? Gary is one of my favourite ACW Authors and a great guy. I met him years ago at a seminar in Gettysburg and he was gracious enough to share some of his research with me when I was writing Barksdale's biography.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

It is fascinating how so few modern Americans understand how important the idea of Union was, and still should be!

It's a very curious thing that this idea was seemingly lost in time, despite the highly national patriotic times of the 1940s to the turn of the century. I would be interesting to read an essay comparing and contrasting the concept of Union in the 1860s with 20th century ideas of American patriotism.

Robert E. Hunt, author of The Good Men Who Won the War: Army of the Cumberland Veterans and Emancipation Memory, "contends that rather than remembering the war as a crusade against the evils of slavery, the veterans of the Army of the Cumberland saw the end of slavery as a by-product of the necessary defeat of the planter aristocracy that had sundered the Union; a good and necessary outcome, but not necessarily an assertion of equality between the races."

The realities of emancipation are just too complicated for most modern folks to wrap their heads around. In a post-Civil Rights world they can only see equality and inequality.

In addition to slavery being a critical part of the Southern economy (destroying it hastened the war's end) and Southern planter aristocracy (the people responsible for bringing about secession), there were people who - especially after seeing slaves and plantations for the first time - saw slavery as cruelty. You can believe someone is mistreated while still believing they are your inferior.

 

[John Hartwell]

During the Ken Burns series, historian Barbara Fields said that without emancipation the war would have been "meaningless carnage". I imagine many white federal soldiers would have disagreed. Many soldiers in black units would probably be more sympathetic to that view.

Preservation of the Union was the Cause of the overwhelming majority of US supporters during and after the war. For them, by and large, it was, worth their willing sacrifice.

What Fields was saying is that, viewed from today's perspective, IF the war had ended simply with the restoration of the Union as it was, with slavery intact, it could well be seen as "meaningless carnage." Nothing would have changed, except for four years of suffering and destruction. Emancipation, even as a byproduct of the war, gives it a profound additional meaning, indeed -- even if that meaning was not appreciated at the time. It may not have been their motivation, or even their wish, but it came as the result of their actions.

We are living in the present, and recognizing the influence of past events (intentional or otherwise) in creating that Present is a legitimate part of the study of history.

 

[wausaubob]

My recollection is that many of the USCT soldiers were recent enlistments and Grant chose them rather than the long serving early enlistees to go with Sheridan to Texas and announce emancipation and provide secretive aid to the Mexican republican forces. He might have some racist reasons not to have USCT in the Grand Review, but he certainly wanted them in Texas as visible proof of the outcome of the war.
As to the importance of union, the point can be made clearer by considering the economic incentives. Every industrialist, every railroad investors, every farm owner in what was then the western states, now the Midwest, every owner of town lots and city real estate, knew the future of their business and the value of their investments was tied to Manifest Destiny and the US maintaining full unity.

 

[wausaubob]

Abolitionist sentiment was noisy but not impressive. I think most people in the paid labor states knew by 1860 slavery was a dead end in the western world. For the US, voluntary immigration from Ireland, England and the rest of Europe, was the fastest way to the US to grow. Careful reading of the Preliminary Census report of May 1862 and the final summation in 1864 confirm that the census analysts were taking the common view that the immigration of white people would soon make slavery obsolete.

 

[LetUsHavePeace]

These are the annual immigration numbers for 1855 to 1870:
1855: 200,877
1856: 200,436
1857: 251,306
1858: 123,126
1859: 121,282
1860: 153,640
1861: 91,918
1862: 91,985
1863: 176,282
1864: 193,418
1865: 248,120
1866: 318,568
1867: 315,722
1868: 138,840
1869: 352,768
1870: 387,203