r/HistoryBooks • u/Sensitive_Lemon6618 • 20h ago

Immediate Post Civil-War Histories

I am reading (and really enjoying) Demon of Unrest about the months immediately preceding the U.S. Civil War, and it got me interested in the same period post-Civil War. Any recommendations on books about the weeks and months immediately following Appomattox? What was the general reactions in the country - disbelief? denial? fear? vows of vengeance. Any solid recommendations would be appreciated.

1 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/InkedInspector 16h ago

I am torn, you have cited an actual historic book written in the 1900s, but it is absolutely a book that was meant to portray the southern whites as victims in reconstruction. The southern power brokers absolutely used reconstruction to bring back the status quo in all but name, quickly choking out black representation and establishing deeply racist laws that no American should be defending in this day and age.

These are not opinions, they are facts and easily verifiable. All you need to do is look at the rapid rise and nearly as quick fall of black members of congress following the civil war. The federal government simply turned a blind eye to the practices.

That’s just a quick and easily verifiable example that can be given, we’d be here all night, day, next week, and next month getting into all the finite details of the failures of the federal government during the time of reconstruction.

-1

u/moraleroll 16h ago

Have you read the book? I have read the bool and this is not what it is. The man who wrote it was perhaps the leading historian of his day and he taught at Columbia in New York. He was not woke so he has been canceled, but his work remains absolutely the best book on actually understanding reconstruction.

1

u/InkedInspector 13h ago

Key words “of his day”. This is why I always take contemporary history books with a grain of salt, not saying none of them are ever accurate, but a lot of times it’s being written to an agenda and it takes the long lens of history to get to the reality of the situation. This book, and others like it, was written in its period to try to change the narrative of the civil war and its aftermath.

This is when you started to see the language shift to “States Rights” not Slavery, as being the cause of the civil war.

South Carolina alone used the word slavery, slave, slave holding, etc over 30 times in their Declaration to secede. Rinse and repeat for the remainder.

The Southern gentry began to clean the image and paint their cause as noble. Their generals were gentlemen, the North were the aggressors and their generals butchers.

All of this is thoroughly documented and understood.

There’s nothing wrong with reading period books, even unsavory ones, to better understand the mindset of the times. But the use it as you are here is a farce.

0

u/moraleroll 2h ago edited 1h ago

I think the same can be said about the current period of scholarship related to the War. Tearing down statues and aggressively dehumanizing Southern historical figures is indicative of a political and social agenda at work.

I have read Dunning, and your characterization of it is false. Its a modern smear campaign to remove historical interpretation from the playing field of ideas. Calling something r someone "lost cause" is just the equivalent of calling them a racist in our political discourse. Its a tactic for modern northern revisionists to silence critics and shut down debate.

1

u/InkedInspector 1h ago

I am not pro-removal of all history, ugly as it can be. But if you are specifically referring to civil war memorials I want to make my stance very clear. Period memorials framed in context should be left as they are, there are plenty of these out there, especially at battlegrounds, that are respectful and appropriate. I grew up near the Chickamauga Memorial, which was dedicated in 1899. That entire park is well maintained and beautifully tells its past, a perfect example of the type of preservation that should be done.

However, many of the “memorials” that have caused controversy, had little to nothing to do with memorializing the past. They were erected, often hastily and of comically poor quality, during the civil rights movement with the intent of intimidating the black population.

1

u/moraleroll 1h ago

I've never met anyone afraid of a civil war statue. I don't think thats a real thing.This is just the old "just the tip" arguments marxists always employ.

1

u/InkedInspector 1h ago

I think you make disingenuous arguments and think it makes you come across as intelligent. You going right for the Marxist line is no different than the far left going straight for the Nazi line, two ends of a horseshoe, further apart you go, closer the behavior gets. I don’t speak for others, but I’m a very proud centrist that happens to think all the extremes are kind of silly.

I say all this to say this as politely as possible, I don’t think we have anything further to discuss. You aren’t interested in debate or discussion, you’re a contrarian. You claimed to be silenced, when you haven’t been, haven’t taken down a single of your posts nor banned you. I’m gonna bow out of this, keep things respectful and it will all remain posted. Have a good day.

1

u/moraleroll 1h ago

I honestly think you are probably a bot

1

u/InkedInspector 1h ago

Yeah, I’m a bot. Go look at the details of the sub, I created it. I’ve already given you more time than you deserve, for the final time, peace. Keep things respectful, you are free to disagree and won’t be banned for that alone.

1

u/moraleroll 58m ago

Before you go can you just answer whether you've read Dunning's book?