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

Learn More →

War No More: The Antiwar Impulse in American Literature, 1861–1914 (review)

War No More: The Antiwar Impulse in American Literature, 1861–1914 (review) failure and states’ rights weakened the Confederacy from within, Neely fi nds that the Confederacy suff ered no large-scale constitutional heart- burn over Jeff erson Davis’s suspension of the writ, over conscription, or even over impressment. Signifi cantly, Neely observes, no Confederate state ever contemplated nullifi cation, and the mobilization of the Confederacy’s resources reached astonishingly successful levels. Like Gary Gallagher, Neely is convinced that what killed the Confederacy was not a shortage of nationalistic sentiment or national unity, but a shortage of victories in battle. Maybe the best word for a book on Lincoln that asserts that “it is . . . utterly impossible to see a rational pattern” in Lincoln’s decision making about emancipation is quixotic (126). It may also be the best word for a book on the Constitution in the Civil War which devotes fewer than two pages to Ex parte Merryman, makes no allusion to Lambdin Milligan (or the very unnationalistic decision associated with him), and takes only one quick pass at the northern sectionalist Clement Laird Vallandigham. But alongside quixotic, I also want to add lively, uncluttered, commonsensi- cal, and authoritative. If Neely ignores the usual suspects in the consti- tutional history of http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of the Civil War Era University of North Carolina Press

War No More: The Antiwar Impulse in American Literature, 1861–1914 (review)

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-north-carolina-press/war-no-more-the-antiwar-impulse-in-american-literature-1861-1914-h3T8gzln8R
Publisher
University of North Carolina Press
Copyright
Copyright @ The University of North Carolina Press
ISSN
2159-9807

Abstract

failure and states’ rights weakened the Confederacy from within, Neely fi nds that the Confederacy suff ered no large-scale constitutional heart- burn over Jeff erson Davis’s suspension of the writ, over conscription, or even over impressment. Signifi cantly, Neely observes, no Confederate state ever contemplated nullifi cation, and the mobilization of the Confederacy’s resources reached astonishingly successful levels. Like Gary Gallagher, Neely is convinced that what killed the Confederacy was not a shortage of nationalistic sentiment or national unity, but a shortage of victories in battle. Maybe the best word for a book on Lincoln that asserts that “it is . . . utterly impossible to see a rational pattern” in Lincoln’s decision making about emancipation is quixotic (126). It may also be the best word for a book on the Constitution in the Civil War which devotes fewer than two pages to Ex parte Merryman, makes no allusion to Lambdin Milligan (or the very unnationalistic decision associated with him), and takes only one quick pass at the northern sectionalist Clement Laird Vallandigham. But alongside quixotic, I also want to add lively, uncluttered, commonsensi- cal, and authoritative. If Neely ignores the usual suspects in the consti- tutional history of

Journal

The Journal of the Civil War EraUniversity of North Carolina Press

Published: Aug 29, 2012

There are no references for this article.