Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Theater of a Separate War: The Civil War West of the Mississippi River, 1861–1865 by Thomas W. Cutrer (review)

Theater of a Separate War: The Civil War West of the Mississippi River, 1861–1865 by Thomas W.... a short war, despite their efforts to fight it sharply and quickly, Union lead - ers were able to justify the conflict as necessary and moral—their cause was righteous, as it would save the republic and free the slaves—and to limit its destruction in the name of humane treatment of the enemy. Dilbeck does not deny that there were exceptions and paradoxes, but he ultimately praises the Union for not only fighting hard to preserve the nation but also sincerely striving to make the war moral and humane. This book is a significant contribution to the literature on the nature of the Civil War. While it fits well with the debate between those who argue about whether the war was destructive or limited, Dilbeck shifts the ground and invites his readers to consider the question within the con- text of the times and to judge Union leaders on their own terms. Rather than settle the debate, he has filled a gap and encouraged us to refocus our thinking about how the fighting was conducted and what it meant to those who fought what they believed was a just war. A. James Fuller notes 1. Dilbeck correctly identifies scholars within http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of the Civil War Era University of North Carolina Press

Theater of a Separate War: The Civil War West of the Mississippi River, 1861–1865 by Thomas W. Cutrer (review)

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-north-carolina-press/theater-of-a-separate-war-the-civil-war-west-of-the-mississippi-river-V08iE0US7r
Publisher
University of North Carolina Press
Copyright
Copyright @ The University of North Carolina Press
ISSN
2159-9807

Abstract

a short war, despite their efforts to fight it sharply and quickly, Union lead - ers were able to justify the conflict as necessary and moral—their cause was righteous, as it would save the republic and free the slaves—and to limit its destruction in the name of humane treatment of the enemy. Dilbeck does not deny that there were exceptions and paradoxes, but he ultimately praises the Union for not only fighting hard to preserve the nation but also sincerely striving to make the war moral and humane. This book is a significant contribution to the literature on the nature of the Civil War. While it fits well with the debate between those who argue about whether the war was destructive or limited, Dilbeck shifts the ground and invites his readers to consider the question within the con- text of the times and to judge Union leaders on their own terms. Rather than settle the debate, he has filled a gap and encouraged us to refocus our thinking about how the fighting was conducted and what it meant to those who fought what they believed was a just war. A. James Fuller notes 1. Dilbeck correctly identifies scholars within

Journal

The Journal of the Civil War EraUniversity of North Carolina Press

Published: Mar 6, 2018

There are no references for this article.