American Civil War: A History From Beginning to End (Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Confederacy, Emancipation Proclamation, Battle of Gettysburg) by Henry Freeman

American Civil War: A History From Beginning to End (Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Confederacy, Emancipation Proclamation, Battle of Gettysburg) Reviews

• 
  Labijose

  La Guerra civil Americana en una hora. El que espere un sesudo análisis debe buscar en otro sitio. Pero, para los que queremos refrescar la memoria con datos, antecedentes, fechas y grandes batallas, es un repaso muy completo.
  Quizás el autor peque de bendecir en demasía a La Unión en detrimento de Los Confederados, pero es lo que hay. Como en todas las guerras, atrocidades hubo por ambos bandos, pero es difícil no acabar tomando partido, y el autor lo toma.
  Este libro forma parte de una colección (Hourly History), que a mí me está sirviendo mucho para actualizar antiguos conocimientos de la historia y de sus personajes. Y todo ello en un santiamén.
  
• 
  Agnieszka

  This was my second book by this author/publisher and I enjoyed it much more than the first one.
  Living in Europe I have not much knowledge about American history and development of the society so I was happy to grab this book a few years ago when it was free. It was a great way to learn the most basic information about this pivotal time period.
  
  The language is easy enough to follow for foreign readers with some experience though I doubt beginners would enjoy it as much - especially regarding all the technical terminology and historical events, persons and places that are so familiar to native speakers they don't need any explanation but another factor to look up for foreigners.
  
  All in all I liked this book very much, learned a lot (especially about some of the consequences still having effects on today's society). I am interested in this topic even more now and hope to explore it more in the future.
• 
  Anil Swarup

  So much has been written about the American Civil War that it is difficult to add to what has already been said. However, Hourly History comes up with a concise but interesting description of what happened during those tumultuous years. What is significant is the role of women and the "slaves" that contributed to the victory of those that fought against secession.
• 
  Yazir Paredes

  Covering the American Civil War in an hour-book, is extremly hard to do. But here you get a quick nice glance at it.
• 
  Young Kim

  How was it possible that the United States became the super power and the global hegemon of our time? Imagine a different hi-story with the American Civil War turned out in a different result?
  
  There’s no denying that the war was one of the most significant events in the history of our time’s greatest nation on earth. The result kept the American States united.
  
  (Kindle Ed. pp. 1-2)
  Few would question that the Civil War was a pivotal moment in American history, perhaps the young nation’s most important to date. As such, each generation of historians has told its story differently, hoping to harness its legacy for a variety of cultural and political ends...The way that Americans have remembered the war is just as important as the war itself, as it shaped future momentous events, including the Great Depression, the Civil Rights Movement, the War on Drugs, and many others.
  
  That’s not all; there are more to think about, more than we generally perceive and think when it comes to the Civil War. And some facts we realize make us sad about the paradox the country was established upon in the first place: All men are equal before God.
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 2)
  ...While we will explore why successive generations fought about this question and why the truth was subverted, it is important to understand from the outset that the cause of the Civil War was slavery. More specifically, the cause of the Civil War was not primarily the defense of slavery where it existed already, but the protection of the spread of slavery into new and future territories of the United States...
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 2)
  ...Slavery was not only an extremely lucrative form of labor that was beneficial to the enormously profitable style of agriculture in the Deep South, but the internal slave trade was a big business onto itself. After the United States closed the African slave trade and forbade the importation of slaves in 1807, the four million slaves in the country themselves became much more valuable. Their reproductive capabilities were a huge factor in their value and children, too were commodified. Especially in Upper South states like Maryland and Virginia, enslavers literally farmed human beings; they made incredible sums of money by selling their slaves into the cotton kingdom of the Lower South, with Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi providing some of the most lucrative slave markets...
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 5)
  While slavery was an ever-present problem, it flared up at certain points. One issue that the Constitution did not address directly was the spread of slavery. While it allowed for the abolition of the African slave trade, it did not rule on whether slavery should spread as America grew in size, and this question more than any other manifested itself time and again. The nature of American slavery necessitated that it be able to spread, for several reasons...
  
  The worst irony of the American society as a democratic nation was, and still is today, her partisan politics. It certainly had its good points, but was also messy and nasty; they just wanted to put the blame on each other instead of solving the problem together as one.
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 11)
  ...Abraham Lincoln was actually not President when secession occurred. He was elected in November of 1860, and in the months between his election and inauguration in March 1861, seven states seceded from the Union. South Carolina, which had long advocated for secession, was the first, in December 1860. During January, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida followed suit, and Texas seceded in early February. President Buchanan, who was a Democrat, was in office at the time, and chose not to take action. Rather, he preferred to let his successor handle the crisis, since his election had brought it on anyways...
  
  Nevertheless, the new President was definitely a man who did understand politics. His first political move as the commander-in-chief was a wise way to win the war before it had started.
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 11)
  ...He also allowed the South to become the instigator...
  
  His North, too, knew how to win a war. Read my book,
  Admiral LEE, the Mentor of Human Race, and see how decisive supply really is.
  
  (Kindle Ed. p.16)
  ...initially, they were successful in forcing the Union troops to retreat. However, they were unable to maintain their supply line, and eventually they too fell back, never to regain that ground again...
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 18)
  ...This was an enormous victory for the Union, and an even bigger blow to the Confederacy. It cannot be overstated how important New Orleans, located near the mouth of the Mississippi River, was. It was the South’s most prosperous city and busiest port. The loss also meant that supplying the army along the Mississippi River would be much, much more difficult...
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 20)
  ...By late spring, though, a series of decisive battles would be fought, and by midsummer, the tide of war had turned significantly in favor of the North. Certainly, the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation changed the tone of the war...
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 27)
  ...In the end, the South received little support from other nations anywhere in the world, and this had a negative impact on their effectiveness in the war. The South did not have many factories or manufactures, so the lack of imports really hurt them as well.
  
  No one can deny the United States Naval blockade of the South was a huge blow to the Confederate States of America.
  
  You know the Emancipation Proclamation was only possible because the North was being industrialized. If her economy had been like that of the South, she’d never have won that war no matter how ethical she sounded. I’d say it was all about the better supply systems backed by the Union’s still-active trade under the U.S. Naval protection and industry of the North with better infrastructures.
  
  It was more like the Emancipation, too, would have been annulled with its cause lost after all if the war had been lost.
  
  Pres. Grant sucked, but Gen. Grant rocked; he was really good at his job, and the United States of America owed him her unity, power and prosperity.
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 21)
  While the fighting around Washington, D.C. in Virginia and Maryland was not progressing in Lincoln’s favor, two other generals were achieving victories in the west: Grant and Sherman. Grant won several Mississippi battles during early May near the city of Vicksburg, and his siege of the city began on May 18. Vicksburg is located on the Mississippi River and was a crucial supply line for the Confederates, especially after losing New Orleans. The siege finally ended when the city and army, suffering from shortage of food and unable to continue to fight, was forced to surrender to General Grant...
  
  Again, it wasn’t, in real, about morality, but about the military leadership in the field that brought victory to the North, and this victory united the country.
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 28)
  ...These protests quickly turned racial, however: whites began attacking blacks mercilessly, believing them to be the cause of the war, and fearing that emancipation would threaten their own economic livelihood. Lincoln was forced to divert U.S. troops to put the riot down, many of them fresh from the fields of Gettysburg. By the time the riot was ended, more than one hundred people were killed, including eleven lynched African-Americans, hundreds more were injured, and thousands of dollars’ worth of damage had been done. The riots revealed deep-seated divisions in the North over the course and outcome of the war.
  
  Lincoln himself didn't really support the racial equality either, but only cared the emancipation for his political and economic purposes (I remember there’s this 1858-news article I found in college where Senator Abraham Lincoln denied racial equality: I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, of having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man).
  
  As a matter of fact, with the ongoing industrial revolution in the North, the leaders needed more numbers of cheap laborers who could work in their factories, not slaves for the cotton farms in the South: Here we witness the rise of American Industrial Capitalism.
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 35)
  ...In it, he re-framed the purpose of the war: not only was it a fight to preserve the Union, but it was a fight for the freedom and human rights of all people...
  
  Anyway, it is true that President Abraham Lincoln, indeed, found a fancy cause and utilized it like a real, professional politician.
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 39)
  ...States had to not only re-write their constitutions, but also reconstruct their economic systems without slavery. It was a massive, daunting task, all to be taken on by Lincoln’s incompetent successor, Andrew Johnson.
  
  And that wasn’t the initial plan of Lincoln's Republican Party, the completion of American Industrial Revolution?
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 41)
  ...in the contested presidential election of 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes became the victor. In exchange, he and the Republicans agreed to withdraw troops from the South, ending the period of Reconstruction...
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 41)
  ...While their fathers had fought and died in the divisive war to free the slaves, the sons made blacks the sacrificial lambs of national reunion.
  
  I won’t deny that sad fact, but while we remember it we can also focus on the positive legacies of the Civil War to learn lessons for our future?
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 42)
  ...Americans began to think of the “Old South” as a gentle place with a stately way of life, ignoring the fact that much of what they waxed nostalgic for was literally built on the backs of millions of enslaved human beings...
  
  Let’s be honest to ourselves: Is the great Roman history we hail so much any different? The pride of South Korean people today, the history of Cogaree’o Empire is any different? How'bout the French people's favorite, the history of Napoleon in which 5 million people were killed for the glory of French Empire? That's just been the reality of building a great power and prosperity based on unity either forced or not. Let’s not forget that Roman Empire declined when its prestigious citizenship was granted upon every single resident within the border meaning no more slaves, and so did the Kingdom of Chosun in Korean history. It's easy to imagine what would happen to a society where no one did any dirty or dangerous, yet necessary works.
  
  Anyways, I like the writer's open-mindedness and his different angle to look at a historical event repenting of what his own society had done, and hope many more in the society got a clear line and fair balance in their hearts before criticizing others for their wrong doings.
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 42)
  ...By ignoring and even working to undo the memory of slavery, Americans were able to whitewash the war, erasing its most bitter, most embarrassing, and more destructive aspects...
  
  Just like the Japanese when it comes to WWII atrocities, so no bitching about others while we are the same...sigh. No wonder Koreans are mad at me, lmao! What fragile, emotional beings we truly are. We got no coherence or clear line; always it’s a romance if I fall in love with a married one, but a cheating if another person does the same (interesting, like the term "Indo-Pacific" I used for the first time more than 10 years ago is now official in America, this line about romance or cheating, too, is widely used in S. Korean society years after I used it for the first time in my blog post, ha-ha).
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 43)
  ...Southerners used several tactics to do this, not the least of which being terrorism, but also including mass incarceration, sharecropping and debt peonage, denial of access to any sufficient public services including education, and legalized segregation (called Jim Crow laws). The South was not alone in exercise of racial discrimination; at best the North stood by and allowed Southerners to exercise this kind of domination, and at worst, they, too participated in it. In fact, during the Great Depression in the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was only able to pass some of his famous New Deal legislation by appealing to Southern Democrats by blocking African Americans from access to any of the programs.
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 43)
  ...Northerners and Southerners came together on the battlefields upon which they fought to erect monuments, and later generations still gather to reenact battles or visit the sites, without a second thought to the true cause and ultimate failure of the war. After the end of Reconstruction, Southern whites, particularly those who had been powerful before the war, worked to regain their power and again subordinate the freedmen. For the sake of reunion, and out of their own racism, the rest of the country allowed it to happen...
  
  I know what the author is talking about, and I understand that angle and aspect too, but I wouldn't call the Civil War an ultimate failure since the war's end, again, brought the country back as one (as a nation), and thanks to that unity we see the United States of America we know today, the most powerful nation of our planet. Of course the unfortunate aspect they missed to fix at the time must be dealt with now as we've been consistently fighting to make it right today. Everything will be fine after all, but complaining wouldn't bring any good to us and our future. Only hard work to make things "actually" better will bring us all the better future we all really want.
  
  Lastly, I found some typos for the Hourly History to work on.
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 20)
  ...The year 1863 would bring much controversy and much perlustration for the president.
  
  I’m sure perlustration gotta be frustration.
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 28)
  ...often painting tithe struggle as as the next American Revolution...
  
  (Kindle Ed. p. 24)
  ...The United States of America had been in existence for at least eighty years...
  
  And just an irrelevant remark: OMG, this tells how young the Republic of Korea still is!
• 
  Thom Swennes

  Probably the most defining period in the history of the United States is that of the American Civil War (1861-1865). This was the time when a unique country, born from the dream of liberty and democracy, transcended the experimental stage into a truly united country. Growing pains can be very painful. This war, that eventually unified the nation, cost the blood and lives of more Americans than any other war in that nation’s history; for the causalities on both sides were Americans. This war pitted brother against brother, father against son, and neighbor against neighbor. The root cause was slavery yet a vast majority of the participants owned no slaves. The principals, laid down in the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (created on November 15, 1777), were pitted against the Constitution of the United States (created on September 17, 1787), confirming that each state was committed to being part of the union and its central government.
  Although this is far from a comprehensive history of a war that lasted five years and consisted of literally hundreds of actions, skirmishes, battles, and campaigns, it does give the reader an easy to understand the background to the hostilities. It also provides a glimpse into the problems faced by both sides. And lastly, it serves as a reminder that, even though the last shot was fired 152 years ago, the struggle for complete emancipation and equality rages on even today.
  
• 
  Ed Barton

  A Brief Overview
  
  It’s near impossible to cover an event like the American Civil War in a 50 page book. Don’t expect depth - though the author focuses on issues and sociology rather than military actions, and in doing so made a good choice. It puts the war in perspective without getting bogged down in dates places and names.
• 
  Barry Jenkins

  Obviously written by a far left mindset
  
  Many discrepancies in this book. The biggest is probably as the author said that Sherman did not burn Georgia that it was burned by Georgians. In later chapter he then acknowledged that his army burned Atlanta before they went on a burning spree throughout the state.
• 
  Kimberly

  We've evolved, but barely.
  
  There was a small amount of time to celebrate the Northern victory. The last 150+ years tells us that we still have a long way to go. We aren't going to cleanse over 400 years of hatred in this short amount of time. We have come a long way but there are still a lot of hate filled people out there to address.
• 
  Bruce

  This is an excellent summary of the Civil War from its roots, then through the war, and finally to the end of reconstruction. I especially appreciated the author's efforts to highlight factors outside of the military actions and the legacy of pain that continues to this very day.
• 
  Lea

  This is not an historically accurate account.
  
  Don’t bother. Not worth your time. False claims as truths throughout the book. Claims that slavery was sole cause, not states rights granted by the constitution. A farce.
• 
  Nik

  Very good introduction
  
  Readable and comprehensive introduction to the American civil war. I hadn't realised how much its legacy continues. Apart from the causes of the war and the battles, other aspects like the role played by women in the North are covered.
• 
  Michele Amitrani

  Short and easy to read history of the American Civil War, and of its consequences for the United States of America.
• 
  Sally-Jayne

  A concise history, giving an excellent overview to the beginner and easy to read in just a few minutes.
• 
  Jack

  Audible Audiobook
• 
  Crystal Edleman

  Nicely done
  
  While this book does not cover all aspects of the Civil War, it covers a variety of facts. It's a good read. Short and simple.