Potus Geeks Book Review: Embattled Rebel - Jefferson Davis as Commander in Chief
In James McPherson's 2014 book entitled Embattled Rebel: Jefferson Davis as Commander In Chief, the author offers an interesting perspective on the war that differs from that provided by most historians: the Confederate perspective. Whereas most Civil War histories look at the war from the Union point of view, and most often from the perspective of Abraham Lincoln, McPherson reminds the reader that there was another side in the conflict, and he examines the losing side of the conflict from the vantage of its chief executive.
This book is not a biography of Jefferson Davis in the "cradle to grave" sense. It is precisely what its title promises, a look at Davis during his tenure as President of the Confederacy commencing with his election to the post and ending with his capture. Ever the professional, McPherson neither praises his subject, nor vilifies him, though he does acknowledge at the outset that, as an author, his sympathies are with the Union side. He expresses his fundamental disagreement with Davis on the issues of preservation of the institution of slavery, and destruction of the union, which McPherson properly describes as "tragically wrong." Beyond this obvious disclaimer however, McPherson conducts an objective analysis of Davis's conduct of the Confederate war effort and his relationship with his generals. He gives the reader sufficient detail and information to form his or her own opinion as to Davis's administrative abilities.
Did the south lose the Civil War because of Jefferson Davis, or in spite of him? That is the central question which McPherson considers in this book. McPherson presents the relevant facts surrounding this issue, but leaves it to the reader to make his or her own assessment. There are some aspects of the question for which the evidence is considerable. Davis had a very strong work ethic, despite significant health issues. He was also very either a hands-on manager or an annoying micro-manager, depending on one's point of view. McPherson also notes that Davis, himself a West Point graduate, had a preference for generals of similar pedigree, and this bias may have adversely colored his judgement. Perhaps the most interesting facet of this book is the relationship Davis had with his generals, and how he sometimes adopted inflexible opinions as to their abilities, rightly or wrongly. McPherson's description of the relationship between Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee is especially fascinating.
Critics of the book have noted its paucity, and this is a fair comment. This is not a lengthy read, it is a concise cursory study of its subject. McPherson is very pointed in his analysis, and the book is an executive summary of its subject rather than an detailed and in-depth analysis. The reader looking for mountains of academic discourse will be disappointed.
James McPherson is clearly in the uppermost echelon of Civil War historians. In addressing the subject of the abilities of Jefferson Davis as commander in chief, he tackles a very controversial subject. Even a century and a half after the end of the conflict, Davis continues to evoke strong visceral and emotional responses from people. It takes a historian of McPherson's stature and gravitas to examine such a sensitive subject, and in this book he does so with all the professionalism and academic integrity that readers and students of history have come to expect from him.
This book is not a biography of Jefferson Davis in the "cradle to grave" sense. It is precisely what its title promises, a look at Davis during his tenure as President of the Confederacy commencing with his election to the post and ending with his capture. Ever the professional, McPherson neither praises his subject, nor vilifies him, though he does acknowledge at the outset that, as an author, his sympathies are with the Union side. He expresses his fundamental disagreement with Davis on the issues of preservation of the institution of slavery, and destruction of the union, which McPherson properly describes as "tragically wrong." Beyond this obvious disclaimer however, McPherson conducts an objective analysis of Davis's conduct of the Confederate war effort and his relationship with his generals. He gives the reader sufficient detail and information to form his or her own opinion as to Davis's administrative abilities.
Did the south lose the Civil War because of Jefferson Davis, or in spite of him? That is the central question which McPherson considers in this book. McPherson presents the relevant facts surrounding this issue, but leaves it to the reader to make his or her own assessment. There are some aspects of the question for which the evidence is considerable. Davis had a very strong work ethic, despite significant health issues. He was also very either a hands-on manager or an annoying micro-manager, depending on one's point of view. McPherson also notes that Davis, himself a West Point graduate, had a preference for generals of similar pedigree, and this bias may have adversely colored his judgement. Perhaps the most interesting facet of this book is the relationship Davis had with his generals, and how he sometimes adopted inflexible opinions as to their abilities, rightly or wrongly. McPherson's description of the relationship between Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee is especially fascinating.
Critics of the book have noted its paucity, and this is a fair comment. This is not a lengthy read, it is a concise cursory study of its subject. McPherson is very pointed in his analysis, and the book is an executive summary of its subject rather than an detailed and in-depth analysis. The reader looking for mountains of academic discourse will be disappointed.
James McPherson is clearly in the uppermost echelon of Civil War historians. In addressing the subject of the abilities of Jefferson Davis as commander in chief, he tackles a very controversial subject. Even a century and a half after the end of the conflict, Davis continues to evoke strong visceral and emotional responses from people. It takes a historian of McPherson's stature and gravitas to examine such a sensitive subject, and in this book he does so with all the professionalism and academic integrity that readers and students of history have come to expect from him.