The New York Times: Disunion: Modern Historians Revisit and Reconsider the Civil War from Lincoln's Election to the Emancipation Proclamation

Overview

A major new collection of modern commentary— from scholars, historians, and Civil War buffs—on the significant events of the Civil War, culled from The New York Times' popular Disunion on-line journal

Since its debut on November 6, 2010, Disunion, The New York Times' acclaimed journal about the Civil War, has published hundreds of original articles and won multiple awards, including "Best History Website" from the New Media Institute and the ...

See more details below
Hardcover
$19.50
BN.com price
(Save 30%)$27.95 List Price

Pick Up In Store

Reserve and pick up in 60 minutes at your local store

Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (41) from $1.99   
  • New (14) from $2.57   
  • Used (27) from $1.99   
The New York Times: Disunion: Modern Historians Revisit and Reconsider the Civil War from Lincoln's Election to the Emancipation Proclamation

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 7.0
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 10.1
  • NOOK HD Tablet
  • NOOK HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK eReaders
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$15.49
BN.com price
(Save 44%)$27.95 List Price

Overview

A major new collection of modern commentary— from scholars, historians, and Civil War buffs—on the significant events of the Civil War, culled from The New York Times' popular Disunion on-line journal

Since its debut on November 6, 2010, Disunion, The New York Times' acclaimed journal about the Civil War, has published hundreds of original articles and won multiple awards, including "Best History Website" from the New Media Institute and the History News Network. Following the chronology of the secession crisis and the Civil War, the contributors to Disunion, who include modern scholars, journalists, historians, and Civil War buffs, offer ongoing daily commentary and assessment of the Civil War as it unfolded.

Now, for the first time, this fascinating and historically significant commentary has been gathered together and organized in one volume. In The New York Times: Disunion, historian Ted Widmer, has selected more than 100 articles that cover events beginning with Lincoln's presidential victory through the Emancipation Proclamation. Topics include everything from Walt Whitman's wartime diary to the bloody guerrilla campaigns in Missouri and Kansas. Esteemed contributors include William Freehling, Adam Goodheart, and Edward Ayers, among others.

The book also compiles new essays that have not been published on the Disunion site by contributors and well-known historians such as David Blight, Gary Gallagher, and Drew Gilpin Faust. Topics include the perspective of African-American slaves and freed men on the war, the secession crisis in the Upper South, the war in the West (that is, past the Appalachians), the war in Texas, the international context, and Civil War–era cartography. Portraits, contemporary etchings, and detailed maps round out the book.


Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

From Barnes & Noble

Since its November 2010, the New York Times blog Disunion has been enhancing our sense of the Civil War and the myriad issues that swirled around it. It daily entries about topics ranging from the secession crisis to wartime cartography and Walt Whitman's Washington journal have opened or reopened windows into an critical era that all too few of us adequately understand. Historian Ted Widmer (Martin Van Buren; Young America) has selected more than 100 articles from this respected website for readers to peruse at their leisure. Editor's recommendation.

Publishers Weekly
From the annals of the New York Times Opinionator column and timed to coincide with the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, Brown University historian Widmer has pieced together a selection for readers both mildly and deeply interested in the Civil War. Did you know that four slave-holding states remained in the Union after the Civil War began? That President Lincoln was elected without a single electoral vote from the South? Or that West Virginia came into existence when the western part of Virginia "seceded from secession"? Tidbits like these populate pages culled from brief essays in the paper's online column, and the book's format allows for smaller, captivating stories to be told—the kind that are often over-looked in epic histories—like Lincoln's last visit with his step-mother or how Nick Biddle, an African-American servant to a captain in the Union Army, might have been the first to shed blood in hostility during the war. Well-known historians such as Ken Burns, Stephanie McCurry and Adam Goodheart are all represented in this absorbing and important series. B&W photos. (June)
From the Publisher

From the annals of the New York Times Opinionator column and timed to coincide with the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, Brown University historian Widmer has pieced together a selection for readers both mildly and deeply interested in the Civil War. Did you know that four slave-holding states remained in the Union after the Civil War began? That President Lincoln was elected without a single electoral vote from the South? Or that West Virginia came into existence when the western part of Virginia "seceded from secession"? Tidbits like these populate pages culled from brief essays in the paper's online column, and the book's format allows for smaller, captivating stories to be told—the kind that are often over-looked in epic histories—like Lincoln's last visit with his step-mother or how Nick Biddle, an African-American servant to a captain in the Union Army, might have been the first to shed blood in hostility during the war. Well-known historians such as Ken Burns, Stephanie McCurry and Adam Goodheart are all represented in this absorbing and important series. B&W photos.

Booklist - Jay Freeman
In November 2010, the New York Times opened a website, Disunion, in which Civil War scholars, journalists, and amateur historians have continued to contribute hundreds of essays, biographical sketches, and general commentary about our greatest national trial. Widmer, a historian at Brown University, has selected 106 of these articles, which proceed chronologically from the election of Lincoln to the Emancipation Proclamation. In the first grouping of essays, various aspects of the secession crisis are examined, including a searing portrait of President Buchanan and an often neglected view of antisecession Southerners. In another grouping, a particularly intriguing essay explores Lincoln's "audacious plan" to use government bonds to eliminate slavery in the border states. As a whole, the essays are well written, wide ranging and very informative, even for many Civil War specialists. This work will be an ideal addition to Civil War collections for both public and academic libraries.
Raleigh’s News & Observer / The Charlotte Observer - John David Smith
In his autobiographical "Specimen Days & Collect" (1882) Walt Whitman observed that the Confederates' firing on Fort Sumter sparked "the volcanic upheaval of the nation" and "at once substantially settled the question of disunion." Whitman's book consisted of brief, titled fragments on his war experiences, what readers in the digital age might term blogs.

Whitman would have welcomed "The New York Times: Disunion," edited by Brown University historian Ted Widmer. His book includes 106 articles gleaned from more than 400 original blogs from the Times' Opinionator website.

The posts collected by Widmer disseminate scholarship more dynamically, less elaborately than academic journals do. They feature "the snap, crackle and pop of lively online writing," he notes, "with quick links, illustrations and a spirit of experimentation."

The blogs – now print essays – underscore contingency, unpredictability and variety during the first two years of America's bloodiest war. They examine its international impact, its innumerable personalities, its rich social and technological history, and also many obscure aspects of the war.

For example, in "From San Marino, With Love," Don H. Doyle rescues from obscurity President Abraham Lincoln's diplomatic communiqués during the secession crisis with the leaders of the tiny nation San Marino. Perched atop the Apennine Mountains on the Adriatic side of the Italian peninsula, San Marino, founded in 301 A.D., was the oldest surviving republic in the world.

"We are acquainted from newspapers with political griefs, which you are now suffering," wrote San Marino's Regent Captains, "therefore we pray to God to grant you a peaceful solution of your questions." Touched by the regents' letter, Lincoln responded: "You have kindly adverted to the trial through which this Republic is now passing." Anticipating the language of his Gettysburg Address delivered 1 1/2 years later, Lincoln added, "It involves the question whether a Representative republic, extended and aggrandized so much as to be safe against foreign enemies can save itself from the dangers of domestic faction. I have faith in a good result."

Once the war erupted, Lincoln also had to hone his diplomatic skills at home. When, in August 1861, Gen. John C. Frémont issued what Michael Fellman terms "The First Emancipation Proclamation," unilaterally subjecting the Union Western Department to martial law and emancipating Missouri slaves, Lincoln countermanded the general's edict. More than "a duel between a buffoonish maverick general and an ever-patient and sagacious president," Fellman explains, Frémont's decree constituted "an important precedent." He "articulated the previously unthinkable, employing means that were, as Lincoln emphasized, extra-constitutional under ordinary circumstances." Ironically, more than a year later Lincoln followed Frémont's path.

In "Boxers, Briefs and Battles," Jean Huets examines how underwear for Civil War soldiers was always scarce and became coveted spoils of war. She insists that "the humble suit of underwear highlights the Civil War soldier himself: his endurance and fortitude, his ability to make do with whatever conditions and supplies came along and his sense of humor."

Though seemingly comical, the U.S. Army's Camel Corps, as Kenneth Weisbrode explains, dated back to the 1850s when two Southern secretaries of war, Jefferson Davis and John Floyd, championed camels as fuel-efficient pack animals along the western frontier. In February 1861, Texas Rebels captured Camp Verde, where most of the camels resided, but the Confederates never employed them, and Lincoln's government ultimately abandoned the experiment with dromedaries. "Would the camels have made a fine American cavalry?" Weisbrode asks. "Would they have become as ubiquitous a symbol of the Wild West as the horse and cowboy?"

Though Whitman worried that "the real war will never get into the books," Widmer's "The New York Times: Disunion" makes a good case for high-quality blogs as accurate, entertaining Civil War history.

John David Smith is the Charles H. Stone Distinguished Professor of American History at UNC-Charlotte. His latest book is "A Just and Lasting Peace: A Documentary History of Reconstruction."

Parade.com - Hannah Dreyfus
Did you know that regiments from the North and South kept pets—including bears, eagles, badgers, even a camel—as mascots? Or that a significant percentage of Civil War soldiers were under the age of 18? In this eclectic collection of modern commentary on the Civil War (culled from the New York Times' blog of the same name), scholars and historians explore the conflict from new angles. Their subjects include the roles of women in the war (at home and on the battlefields), as well as the experiences of African Americans, both slaves and freed man. There's an essay with excerpts from Walt Whitman's diary that convey his pride in the swelling Union ranks; another details Lincoln's failed plan to purchase all the slaves in Delaware with government bonds. The book is a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the in war in all its complexities.
Library Journal
In 2010, on the eve of the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War the New York Times launched the Disunion blog to offer essays—with the “snap, crackle and pop of lively online writing”—addressing the Civil War from a variety of angles. Widmer (assistant to the president for special projects, Brown Univ.), with two Times staff editors, has selected over 100 of the blog’s pieces, presenting them in chronological parallel with the war years covered. Here are essays by some notable academics (e.g., David W. Blight), but more are by independent scholars (for example, Amanda Foreman, Harold Holzer) and popular interpreters such as Ken Burns and Winston Groom. The topics range from traditional discussions of President Lincoln, the war’s generals, and major battles to essays on African Americans in the war and studies of other marginalized groups including women, immigrants, and Native Americans.

Verdict The result is a lively anthology that documents the state of today’s scholarship and popular opinion on the war. It is quite different from other new anthologies such as America’s War: Talking About the Civil War and Emancipation on Their 150th Anniversaries, edited by Edward L. Ayers, which includes longer selections of older materials (including fiction) dating from 1852 to the present. This is recommended for most Civil War history collections.—Theresa McDevitt, Indiana Univ. Lib., PA
(c) Copyright 2013. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

Kirkus Reviews
Widmer, a Brown University historian, is joined by New York Times op-ed staff editors Risen and Kalogerakis in the masterful compilation of more than 100 short essays based on the award-winning Times Disunion blog (begun in 2010), which chronologically traces and reconsiders the War between the States, an event he believes still remains "a ghostly presence in American life." The collection sequentially launches with the secession crisis and moves through the Emancipation Proclamation, and the offerings are wonderfully multifarious. History scholar Louis Masur's insightful essay factors Lincoln's presidential election into the fray as deftly as Susan Schulten ably explores the war from a geographical perspective. War historian Adam Goodheart's contributions are consistent standouts and include a rich sketch of Harriet Tubman and pensive words about slaves at Christmastime. William Freehling considers the secession's impact through Confederate Gen. George Wythe Randolph's eyes, journalist Cate Lineberry offers an outstanding profile of Confederate spy Rose Greenhow and a jarring piece on juvenile soldiers, and military historian C. Kay Larson provides an article on the oft-overlooked presence of female wartime volunteers. Uniform in tone and thought-provoking content, the articles are supplemented by actual diary entries, artifact images, letters, pertinent cartography, photographs and poetry. The mood of the era is captured best through Carole Emberton's harrowingly detailed commentary on the scourge of war-borne smallpox, Terry L. Jones' deliberation on black militiamen and Widmer's own examination of Lincoln's portraiture, carefully manipulated "to give the Union a face--his own." Each of the assembled scholars, historians, academics and journalists crafts unique insights and viewpoints and through their collective dialogue, artistically contemplates the heft and enduring relevance of the Civil War. American history meets the "snap, crackle and pop of lively online writing" in this outstanding serialization.
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9781579129286
  • Publisher: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, Inc.
  • Publication date: 5/14/2013
  • Pages: 464
  • Sales rank: 424,990
  • Product dimensions: 6.42 (w) x 9.04 (h) x 1.34 (d)

Meet the Author

Ted Widmer is a historian, writer, and librarian, who served as a speechwriter in the later days of the Clinton White House. He was the first director of the C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience and an associate professor of history at Washington College from 2001-2006. On July 1, 2006 he was appointed director and librarian of the John Carter Brown Library at Brown University. Widmer is the author of Martin Van Buren (2005), Campaigns: A Centry of Presidential Races (with Alan Brinkley, 2001), and Young America: The Flowering of Democracy in New York City (1999), and has edited the two volumes of American Speeches: Political Oratory from Abraham Lincoln to Bill Clinton published by the Library of America (2006). He is a frequent contributor to The New York Times, The New York Observer, and The American Scholar.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

The New York Times DISUNION

106 articles from The New York Times Opinionator


By TED WIDMER, CLAY RISEN, GEORGE KALOGERAKIS

Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, Inc.

Copyright © 2013 The New York Times
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-57912-928-6



CHAPTER 1

Secession


On December 20, 1860, just 42 days after the election of Abraham Lincoln, South Carolina seceded from the United States. In the following months 10 more states would follow suit, eventually forming the Confederate States of America. Then, on April 12, 1861, Confederate forces under Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard, a former commandant at West Point, launched an attack on the Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, an artificial island in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, precipitating the Civil War. These two events seem, in retrospect, to follow one from the other. But did they?

Historians have long debated whether widespread secession and war were, in the long view, inevitable. There can be little doubt that Lincoln's election guaranteed that at least several slaveholding states would secede. Though Lincoln the candidate took pains to emphasize that he would not move against slavery where it already existed, and as president-elect remained studiously silent on the question, many Southerners believed that the man from Illinois and his new and newly empowered Republican Party would move aggressively to limit slavery's expansion, isolating the South and putting the institution on a short road to extinction.

But secession was not an immediate, sudden step for every state. Though six states—Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas—had joined South Carolina by the end of January 1861, the final four—Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee—did not leave the Union until after the war began. Four more slave states—Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri—remained in the Union. In reality, secession was a fractious, drawn-out process in most places, with degrees of pro-Union sentiment pushing back against secession advocates. In some parts of the Confederacy, primarily the Appalachian Mountain regions of Virginia and Tennessee, Unionist sentiment remained a force throughout the war, generating significant guerrilla activity. Western Virginia undertook a "reverse" secession as a result of the Wheeling Conventions of May and June 1861, leading to the creation of the loyal state of West Virginia.

Though a war was not inevitable, Lincoln did everything he could to ignite one. He understood that the Union would be hobbled without the South's resources; more importantly, he understood that a successful secession over a political dispute would fatally undermine the core premise of American democracy as a system for working out political differences. And if the Union were to be re-formed, it had to happen quickly; should the South win diplomatic recognition, it would be nearly impossible to force it to rejoin without completely defeating it in battle. While that is precisely what it took to end secession, Lincoln was probably still correct in his calculation: allowing the South to gain diplomatic recognition might well have meant fighting not just Richmond, but London and even Paris as well.

It is harder to determine just how eager the Confederacy was for war. Certainly, many of its military and political leaders were keen to fight. But others cautioned against rushing into conflict, recognizing how ill prepared the new country was for a drawn-out war. Fatally, the South did not have the deliberative political structure, let alone the vibrant public sphere, to allow for such a discussion. Put simply, the same hotheads who pulled the South out of the Union were then able to dictate the speed with which it went to war. Rather than negotiate a deal over the Union installations on Confederate soil still held by Northern forces—most notably Fort Sumter—the Confederacy simply occupied them, or demanded their surrender. It was precisely the pretext that Lincoln was looking for to begin a fight, and he soon found it, in Charleston Harbor.


The Last Ordinary Day

By ADAM GOODHEART

Nov. 1, 1860

Seven score and 10 years ago, a little Pennsylvania town drowsed in the waning light of an Indian summer. Almost nothing had happened lately that the two local newspapers found worthy of more than a cursory mention. The fall harvest was in; grain prices held steady. A new ice cream parlor had opened in the Eagle Hotel on Chambersburg Street. Eight citizens had recently been married; eight others had died. It was an ordinary day in Gettysburg.

It was an ordinary day in America: one of the last such days for a very long time to come.

In dusty San Antonio, Colonel Robert E. Lee of the U.S. Army had just submitted a long report to Washington about recent skirmishes against marauding Comanches and Mexican banditti. In Louisiana, William Tecumseh Sherman was in the midst of a tedious week interviewing teenage applicants to the military academy where he served as superintendent. In Galena, Ill., passers-by might have seen a man in a shabby military greatcoat and slouch hat trudging to work that Thursday morning, as he did every weekday. He was Ulysses Grant, a middle-aged shop clerk in his family's leather-goods store.

Even the most talked-about man in America was, in a certain sense, almost invisible—or at least inaudible.

On Nov. 1, less than a week before Election Day, citizens of Springfield, Ill., were invited to view a new portrait of Abraham Lincoln, just completed by a visiting artist and hung in the statehouse's senate chamber. The likeness was said to be uncanny, but it was easy enough for viewers to reach their own conclusions, since the sitter could also be inspected in person in his office just across the hall. Politically, however, Lincoln was almost as inscrutable as the painted canvas. In keeping with longstanding tradition, he did not campaign at all that autumn; did not so much as deliver a single speech or grant a single interview to the press.

Instead, Lincoln held court each day in his borrowed statehouse office, behind a desk piled high with gifts and souvenirs that supporters had sent him—including countless wooden knicknacks carved from bits and pieces of fence rails he had supposedly split in his youth. He shook hands with visitors, told funny stories and answered mail. Only one modest public statement from him appeared in the Illinois State Journal that morning: a small front-page ad, sandwiched between those for a dentist and a saddle-maker, offering the services of Lincoln & Herndon, attorneys at law.

The future is always a tough thing to predict—and perhaps it was especially so on the first day of that eventful month. Take the oil painting of Lincoln, for example: it would be obsolete within weeks when its subject unexpectedly grew a beard. (The distraught portraitist tried to daub in whiskers after the fact, succeeding only in wrecking his masterpiece.) Or, on a grander scale, an article in the morning's New York Herald, using recent census data to project the country's growth over the next hundred years. By the late 20th century, it stated confidently, America's population would grow to 300 million (pretty close to accurate), including 50 million slaves (a bit off). But, asked the author, could a nation comprising so many different people and their opinions remain intact for that long? Impossible.

Writing about the past can be almost as tricky. Particularly so when the subject is the Civil War, that famously unfinished conflict, with each week bringing fresh reports of skirmishes between the ideological rear guards of the Union and Confederate armies, still going at it with gusto.

In many senses, though, the Civil War is a writer's—and reader's—dream. The 1860s were an unprecedented moment for documentation: for gathering and preserving the details of passing events and the texture of ordinary life. Starting just a few years before the war, America was photographed, lithographed, bound between the covers of mass-circulation magazines, and reported by the very first generation of professional journalists.

Half a century ago, as the nation commemorated the war's centennial, a scruffy young man from Minnesota walked into the New York Public Library and began scrolling through reels of old microfilm, reading newspapers published all over the country between 1855 and 1865. As Bob Dylan would recount in his memoir, "Chronicles: Volume 1," he didn't know what he was looking for, much less what he would find. He just immersed himself in that time: the fiery oratory, the political cartoons, the "weird mind philosophies turned on their heads," the "epic, bearded characters." But much later, he swore that this journey deep into the Civil War past became "the all-encompassing template behind everything I would write."


Lincoln Wins. Now What?

By JAMIE MALANOWSKI

Nov. 7, 1860

Yesterday, the start of the most exciting day in the history of Springfield, Ill., could not wait for the sun. At 3 a.m., somebody got Election Day started with volleys of cannon fire, and after that there were incessant and spontaneous eruptions of cheering and singing all day long. A moment of delirium erupted in mid-afternoon, when the city's favorite citizen emerged from his law office and went to vote, taking care to slice his name off the top of the ballot so as to prevent accusations that he had voted for himself. After the sun went down, he joined other Republican stalwarts in the Capitol building, where they eagerly received the early returns that were trotted over from the telegraph office.

There were no surprises: the long-settled Yankees in Maine and New Hampshire and pioneering Germans of Michigan and Wisconsin delivered the expected victories. And then came news from Illinois: "We have stood fine. Victory has come." And then from Indiana: "Indiana over twenty thousand for honest Old Abe."

The throngs in the streets cheered every report, every step towards the electoral college number, but news from the big Eastern states was coming painfully slowly, and finally the candidate and his closest associates decamped the capitol and invaded the narrow offices of the Illinois and Mississippi Telegraph Company. The advisers paced the floorboards, jumping at every eruption of the rapid clacking of Morse's machine, while the nominee parked on the couch, seemingly at ease with either outcome awaiting him.

It wasn't until after 10 that reports of victory in Pennsylvania arrived in the form a telegram from the canny vote-counter Simon Cameron, the political boss of the Keystone State, who tucked within his state's tallies joyfully positive news about New York: "Hon. Abe Lincoln, Penna seventy thousand for you. New York safe. Glory enough."

Not until 2 a.m. did official results from New York arrive, and the expected close contest in the make-or-break state never appeared: the onetime rail-splitter won by 50,000 votes. His men cheered, and broke out into an impromptu rendition of "Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?" Outside, pandemonium had been unleashed, but Abraham Lincoln partook of none it, and instead put on his hat and walked home to bed.

"The Republican pulse continues to beat high," exulted a correspondent for The New York Times. "Chanticleer is perched on the back of the American Eagle, and with flapping wings and a sonorous note proclaims his joy at the victory. The return for the first Napoleon from Elba did not create a greater excitement than the returns for the present election."

Well should he sing, for the days of song will end soon enough. Mr. Lincoln is indeed the president-elect, but barely by a whisker, and what exactly one means by "the United States" any more is apt to become a topic of some heated discussion. Lincoln won his parlay, taking 16 of the 17 Northern states that he set his sights upon, including the hard-fought New York, and most by a solid majority.

But there were states where he was more lucky than popular, like California, where all four candidates polled significant numbers. Lincoln won only 32.3 percent of the ballots, but managed to eke out a victory and capture the state's four electoral votes by the wafer-thin margin of 734 votes. A similar, if slightly less dramatic story played out in Oregon, where Lincoln's victory margin was fewer than 1,200 votes. In his home state of Illinois, facing Mr. Douglas, Mr. Lincoln won by fewer than 12,000 out of 350,000 votes cast, a clear win but hardly a romp.

The South, of course, presents a vastly different picture. In the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas Mr. Lincoln received a combined total of no votes. None. True, his name wasn't even listed on the ballot, but that seems to be a mere technical oversight that would have had no great consequence. After all, in Virginia, the largest and wealthiest southern state, Mr. Lincoln was on the ballot, and there he tallied a total of 1,887 votes, or just 1.1 percent of the total cast. The results were even worse in Kentucky, his place of birth. One might have thought that sheer native pride should have earned him more than 1,364 of the 146,216 votes cast, but perhaps Kentuckians resented that he deserted them at such a tender age.

All told, Mr. Lincoln will assume the presidency in March on the strength of his muscular 180 electoral votes, and despite the puny 39.8 percent of the popular vote he accumulated.

The narrowness of this fragile mandate (if that word can even be used) naturally invites speculation about what might have been. The year began with Mr. Douglas standing, like Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan before him, as an electable anti-slavery Northerner who could be depended on to maintain southern prerogatives. But from the moment last April when fire-eating Southern Democrats made it clear that they would rather punish Mr. Douglas for his vote on the Kansas-Nebraska Act two years ago than win the White House in the fall, it was ordained that the Little Giant, so long touted as a certain president-to-be, was steering a doomed vessel.

Yet there were times when his campaign picked up speed, and at such moments Mr. Douglas seemed very close to capturing enough support to thwart Mr. Lincoln's northern sweep and deny him his electoral college majority. Had that happened, Mr. Douglas would be sitting solidly in second place. He would have demonstrated support both north and south, and he would offer the South preservation of the status quo. That might well have been enough to pacify the reckless Southern Democrats who shunned him in the spring, and to win their support in the House of Representatives.

But for every Douglas surge there was a Douglas blunder. Final tallies show that wherever Mr. Douglas actually campaigned in New York, he won more votes than President Buchanan took when he captured the state four years ago. But instead of investing his time in the Empire State, Mr. Douglas headed into the inhospitable South, where he did the seemingly impossible—he managed to make southern voters dislike him even more than they already did. Appearing before a crowd in Virginia, he was asked if the election of Mr. Lincoln would justify secession. A politician of Mr. Douglas's experience should have known how to handle this kind of question with finesse, but instead he offered the one answer certain to damage him. No, he told the crowd.

He might have stopped at that, but perhaps figuring that, having jumped the fence, he may as well have a picnic, he told the crowd, It is the duty of the president of the United States to enforce the laws of the United States, and if Mr. Lincoln is the winner, I will do all in my power to help the government do so. With that answer, Mr. Douglas dismissed the purported right to secede that the south so cherishes, and surrendered his claim as the only man who could be counted on to keep the union together.

Now that task falls to a president who received fewer than 4 votes in 10; a president who is purely the creature of only one section of the country; a president who, apart from one undistinguished term in the House of Representatives a decade ago (and a period in the state legislature), has no experience in public office; a president who comes from a Republican party that has been stitched together from various interests, who will be asked to work with a Congress whose two houses are controlled by Democrats.

The fire eaters in South Carolina have already announced that they will immediately introduce a bill of secession. But that has been something they have been itching to do for years; as any doctor or fireman will tell you, sometimes the best way to end a fever or a blaze is to just let the thing burn out. Not everyone in the South is a slave owner, and not every slave owner is a disunionist. If any of the firebrands would take the time to listen to what Mr. Lincoln has actually said, they would see that he is no raving abolitionist like Sen. William Seward and his ilk. (Indeed, anti-slavery activist Wendell Phillips sneeringly calls Mr. Lincoln a "huckster" and William Lloyd Garrison says he has "not one drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins.")
(Continues...)


Excerpted from The New York Times DISUNION by TED WIDMER, CLAY RISEN, GEORGE KALOGERAKIS. Copyright © 2013 The New York Times. Excerpted by permission of Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, Inc..
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Contents

Acknowledgements....................     vi     

Introduction....................     vii     

Chapter 1 Secession....................     1     

Chapter 2 The War Begins....................     99     

Chapter 3 Bull run....................     159     

Chapter 4 1862....................     233     

Chapter 5 The War Expands....................     267     

Chapter 6 Toward Emancipation....................     389     

List of Contributors....................     439     

Index....................     445     


Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(0)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted March 11, 2014

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)