Semantics can sometimes be quite important to framing an issue or a debate, especially on a topic such as the Civil War. With "The Confederate Nation" Emory Thomas frames his thesis in the belief Southern secession was not a rebellion so much as a revolution and during the course of the war the character of Southern government changed profoundly as the exigencies of war necessitated a sharp break with its Anti-Federalist Republican past. Although the political leadership advocating secession wrapped themselves in rhetoric of the Spirit of 1776, it was the demands of fighting a war that proved truly revolutionary, transforming a decentralized agrarian economy into the antithesis of Jeffersonian democracy. Thomas references correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson "...that their revolution of 1776 had been complete `in the minds of the people...before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington.' The same was true of the Confederate revolution." The plausibility of that is left for Thomas to expound upon, but the thought of the South being divided into thirds as the Colonists were, one third supporting Revolution, one third Loyalist, and one third disinterested, does seem a plausible summary as the Confederacy first raised the Stars and Bars.

Thomas's desire to tell the Confederate experience in a single volume is an ambitious objective. To do so compromises have to be made and as a result the book could not possibly take into full account the breadth and depth of the entirety of the Confederacy. The question is whether the intent is to produce a survey history or a more substantial scholastic work, and here Thomas elects for the latter. What results is meaningful addition to the canon of Civil War history, but one that is certainly not comprehensive or entirely free of shortcomings. One could certainly question the need for yet another title on the Civil War or to question what Thomas could add that has not already been said of a saga that lasted not quite five years. And yet the events of the Civil War reverberate still today; it remains the defining event in American History and to understand America you must understand the forces that set the Civil War in motion, what the Civil War entailed, and what it means to America today.

Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris note in the forward of The Confederate Nation that nationalism is a perennial theme of American historiography, yet little has been addressed concerning Southern nationalism. (p. xi) It is this lack of acknowledgement regarding Southern nationalism that serves the purpose of this book. The author of the book, Emory Thomas, seeks to understand how Southern nationalism developed, flourished, and ultimately declined during the Civil War era.
The book is a narrative, and uses very little primary sources. Thomas instead relies heavily upon the research and conclusions of previous historians, which he then synthesizes into a story that is easy to read. Through the course of the book Thomas relates short biographies of southerners who were part of the struggle to become a new and independent nation. The biographies help add depth to Thomas's arguments and his overall account of Southern nationalism.
Thomas stresses how Southerners viewed their cause as noble and reasonable as the American Revolutionary War. Southerners, as Thomas puts it, " . . . felt more Southern than American, or perhaps more accurately, that they were orthodox Americans, and Northerners were apostates." (p. 3) The Confederacy Thomas suggests did not begin as a idea for a nation, but a "cause."
Among the questions Thomas addresses are why the Southern middle class followed the upper class into a war that only served the interests of the planters. Thomas contends the middle class looked to the upper class as social betters, noting that often the upper class helped the middle class in many ways, not limited to purchasing livestock and crops from the smaller producers. Thomas also stresses Southerners were almost exclusively evangelical protestant, thus helped make the coalescence of ideals much easier in the South whereas the North was composed of numerous denominations and different interpretations of the responsibilities of each other within society.
Thomas proceeds to account how the formation of the Confederacy began following the election of Lincoln in 1860. For each state of the Confederacy Thomas relates how the proposal for secession was introduced, who agreed and disagreed, and the nature of the people who were members of their respective state assemblies. Thomas notes that once the radicals within the government had achieved secession, many were pushed away from the center of the decision-making as the new Confederate Government was interested in maintaining the status quo during its congressional convention. (p. 44)
Thomas delves further into his narrative, relating in short order the major events of the war itself. Each major battle is discussed, including the generals involved, strategies, and how the results affected the Southern people. Thomas discusses how Southern victories, particularly the initial victory at Bull Run, buoyed the spirits of the people and demonstrated that god was on their side and their cause was just. Thomas emphasizes how the South generally blundered its way through warfare, such as Roanoke and Ft. Donelson. In many instances the South was successful due to superior leadership from men like Robert E. Lee and Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson.
Thomas concludes many of the problems that arose within the Confederate Government had to do with the lack of an opposing party. When the government was being organized it was felt that unanimity was necessary to illustrate how the people of the South were of one mind, and one purpose. This essentially hobbled the government, as there was no organized group to keep the president and his policies in check. Jefferson Davis instituted unpopular policies and laws during the war, such as the first form of conscription in America. Ironically the very centralized and powerful federal government the South had been trying to remove itself from was reappearing in Richmond. Thomas states,
In many respects the Southern nationalism of Jefferson Davis resembled that of the United States from which the Southerners were trying so desperately to separate. The administration of Jefferson Davis reversed the state rights political philosophy which had called it into being and bade fair to make the Confederacy a centralized, national state. (p. 298)

Of note in Thomas's narrative is the growth of Southern industry during the war. Many supposed that if the South were to struggle in any one form during a prolonged war with the United States, it would be due to a lack of materiel to make war. Thomas states the South was more than successful in creating an industrial base to support itself during the war. The South's greatest strength (agriculture) eventually became its greatest weakness. At the end of the war Thomas notes Lee's soldiers at Appomattox had plenty of bullets, but not enough food.
Thomas notes that as the war progressed many ideals and foundations of Southern nationalism were compromised, or even lost altogether. The people of the South were forced to adjust to a government more centralized than the one they had seceded from, forced to change form an agrarian to an industrial society, as well as witness the women modify their roles to planters, nurses, industrial workers, and heads of households. (p. 226) Perhaps the most ironic twist Thomas mentions in the book was and idea that was suggested by several, including Jefferson Davis, to use black slaves as soldiers in the war. To many this was the final blow to the society that the Southerners had been fighting to preserve. To promise freedom to slaves in exchange for army service was the final blow to a weakening nation. Thomas states, "However practical and expedient Davis' suggestions sounded, they threatened to undermine the remaining remnant of the antebellum Southern Ideology." (p.290)
Southern nationalism was based upon beliefs and ideals that nearly all white southerner possessed. Religion, agriculture, slavery, a decentralized government, and the status of women were among the principles the South wished to defend. Thomas suggests that as the war progressed these principles eroded, to the point Southerners had little to fight for.

In August of 1998, I took the step which would lead to my discovering Amazon.com. I enrolled as a master's degree candidate in history at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Before I discovered Amazon, however, I discovered the New American Nation Series. These are a set of political histories of the US from the ratification of the Constitution on through the late 1970's, when the series was written. The first three volumes, which collectively covered the period 1789-1828, were assigned to me and the other students in Dr. William Shade's History of the United States in the Nineteenth Century class. The shortest of the three covered eleven years; the longest covered fifteen. The format and style of the books was such that even a busy graduate student could easily tear through any one of these three in a week or less (in contrast to numerous other books we were assigned in this and other classes -- see the first review I ever posted on Amazon.com, To Die For).



A little over two weeks ago, while accompanying my father to a local Half Price Books, I discovered "The Confederate Nation," a later entry in the series. It covers a shorter period than the first three books I read (1861-1865), but takes about a hundred more pages to do so. Writing in 1979, Professor Emory M. Thomas had a great deal to say, by the standards of the series, about his beloved South (Yankees are not named Emory, in case you hadn't noticed). At the heart of the book is his argument is that from the moment they seceded, the "Rebel" states had to choose between being Confederate and being Southern.



Particularly since their spectacular return to White House dominance in the current party system, Southerners like to think of themselves as America's last, if not its only ever, Jeffersonians. However, total war is at best a Hamiltonian project (at worst, a fascist or Marxist one), which is what sets up the contradictions which Thomas explores with just the right amount of depth for readers seeking an introduction to the subject. There is much here of value for advanced students as well, particularly in the footnotes, where Thomas makes invaluable suggestions for further reading, and the appendix -- the entire text of the Confederate constitution (which never survived long enough to be amended, although the process was theoretically the same as in the US). I give this text my highest recommendation.

In August of 1998, I took the step which would lead to my discovering Amazon.com. I enrolled as a master's degree candidate in history at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Before I discovered Amazon, however, I discovered the New American Nation Series. These are a set of political histories of the US from the ratification of the Constitution on through the late 1970's, when the series was written. The first three volumes, which collectively covered the period 1789-1828, were assigned to me and the other students in Dr. William Shade's History of the United States in the Nineteenth Century class. The shortest of the three covered eleven years; the longest covered fifteen. The format and style of the books was such that even a busy graduate student could easily tear through any one of these three in a week or less (in contrast to numerous other books we were assigned in this and other classes -- see the first review I ever posted on Amazon.com, To Die For).

A little over two weeks ago, while accompanying my father to a local Half Price Books, I discovered "The Confederate Nation," a later entry in the series. It covers a shorter period than the first three books I read (1861-1865), but takes about a hundred more pages to do so. Writing in 1979, Professor Emory M. Thomas had a great deal to say, by the standards of the series, about his beloved South (Yankees are not named Emory, in case you hadn't noticed). At the heart of the book is his argument is that from the moment they seceded, the "Rebel" states had to choose between being Confederate and being Southern.

Particularly since their spectacular return to White House dominance in the current party system, Southerners like to think of themselves as America's last, if not its only ever, Jeffersonians. However, total war is at best a Hamiltonian project (at worst, a fascist or Marxist one), which is what sets up the contradictions which Thomas explores with just the right amount of depth for readers seeking an introduction to the subject. There is much here of value for advanced students as well, particularly in the footnotes, where Thomas makes invaluable suggestions for further reading, and the appendix -- the entire text of the Confederate constitution (which never survived long enough to be amended, although the process was theoretically the same as in the US). I give this text my highest recommendation.

This book is not exactly a page turner, but the writing is good enough and the material is interesting. I read this book after I took a Civil War history class. Of course, most of the books we read for that class were written from the Union perspective (a good deal of McPherson, etc.). The one thing I really appreciated about this book is that I feel it presented the Confederate experience by chronicling the events of the Civil War completely from the vantage point of the Confederacy. That it to say, Thomas doesn't even bother with the Union perspective; that has been thoroughly covered by other authors. Thomas focuses on the Confederacy throughout, and does a good job of conveying the Southern experience.

I think one of this book's strongest characteristics is that it is honest about the Confederacy. This trait manifests itself in both positive and negative feedback. Thomas praises the South in areas where it deserves praise, and yet is honest about some of the paradox inherent in the Confederate experiment. On the whole, I would say that Thomas is probably more friendly to the South than most Civil War authors, but that only made his book all the more refreshing.

I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about how the Confederates perceived their own actions and the events of the Civil War in general. The book is a bit dated, but I didn't feel that it read as such. This book challenged some of my preconceptions about the South, and yet it said nothing that I felt was flagrantly disagreeable. Thomas is a little slow to come out with his thesis, but once he does he supports it thoroughly.