Thomas Fleming - A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War

96 kbps, Unabridged, Read by William Hughes
 
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/a-disease-in-the-public-mind-thomas-fleming/1112576264?ean=9780306821264

Overview

By the time John Brown hung from the gallows for his crimes at Harper’s Ferry, Northern abolitionists had made him a “holy martyr” in their campaign against Southern slave owners. This Northern hatred for Southerners long predated their objections to slavery. They were convinced that New England, whose spokesmen had begun the American Revolution, should have been the leader of the new nation. Instead, they had been displaced by Southern “slavocrats” like Thomas Jefferson. This malevolent envy exacerbated the South’s greatest fear: a race war. Jefferson’s cry, “We are truly to be pitied,” summed up their dread. For decades, extremists in both regions flung insults and threats, creating intractable enmities. By 1861, only a civil war that would kill a million men could save the Union.

Publishers Weekly
Always a quirky, contrarian writer-historian, the prolific Fleming (Washington’s Secret War) offers what he deems a fresh take on the causes of the Civil War. But despite its subtitle, his interpretation isn’t new, and it doesn’t hold up. Fleming’s argument—that fanatics in the North and South drove the nation into avoidable conflict in 1861—was also the argument of a few mid-20th-century historians, like James G. Randall, who called the war’s belligerents a “blundering generation.” If only reason had prevailed, they wistfully regretted, slavery would have withered from within, and all would have been well. But this stance—which is Fleming’s—ignores recent scholarship, which has found that slavery likely would have endured. It also requires Fleming to ignore the war’s profound moral issue, viz. that slavery is an evil. Surely there was much fanaticism, and some slaves were raising themselves up by “mastering the technology of the South’s agriculture as well as the psychology of leadership.” Perhaps change was possible—but it would have been a creeping transformation carried out over decades on the backs of over 3 million slaves, and it would have deeply scarred the nation’s moral and international standing. This book can serve neither as a reliable guide to the past, nor as authoritative argument and scholarship.

Kirkus Reviews
A prolific popular historian casts a harsh light on the abolitionists, insisting that their vitriolic rhetoric deserves more blame for the Civil War. In a preface, Fleming (The Intimate Lives of the Founding Fathers, 2009, etc.) establishes his thesis and defines his terms--diseased public minds have made possible everything from the Salem witch trials to 9/11--then writes that he would like to have been an observer at John Brown's 1859 Harpers Ferry raid. Not many sentences unspool before readers realize that Fleming is no fan of Brown. In the author's view (expanded in later chapters), Brown was a lying, murdering madman, a failure at most everything he attempted. After the Harpers Ferry moments, Fleming returns to the arrival of the first slaves to America in the 17th century, then guides us slowly forward to the outbreak of the Civil War, then to Appomattox and its aftermath. Along the way, he says things that won't endear him to more liberal readers. He defends the slave-owning founders, emphasizing their ambivalence (without any commentary about, say, Sally Hemings), and alludes to research that shows there wasn't as much rape of slave women as the abolitionists averred--and that most slave owners weren't really into whipping and other fierce punishments. (He does condemn slavery, calling it "deplorable.") But John Quincy Adams, William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Brown and others--they were so intent on demonizing the South (where many did not own slaves, Fleming reminds us) that they contributed substantially to the regional polarization that eventually led to war. If only people had been more willing to talk, negotiate and compromise, writes the author. All fine, of course, unless you and yours have been enslaved for more than two centuries. At times, this thesis-driven tour employs a curious moral compass.