The Continuing War

Abstract

THE CONTINUING WAR by Robert Dykstra The Civil War era is without much doubt the most thoroughly researched period in American history. Few segments of the human past, in fact, have received such intimate probing by historical scholars. Therefore one sometimes hears comment (of an elusivesort) thatfurther Civil War research is altogether redundant. A fresh glance through David Donald's admirable 1961 bibliography quickly lays this facüe criticism to rest. As appended to Mr. Donald's revision of The Civil War and Reconstruction, by James G. RandaU, the bibliography surveys pertinent literature published tiirough 1960. As of that date much was still to be accomplished, and few historiographical gaps then pointed out have been bridged in die diree years intervening. Mr. Donald embarks by observing that no "adequate modern general treatment" of the entire war period exists, but diat AUan Nevins' multivolumed The War for the Union—then as now pending completionwould doubtiess meet diis great need. There seems little cause to question tiiat prediction. Proceeding onward, Donald suggests several desirable projects concerning the antebellum South. Among those yet to appear between hard covers are an investigation of the economic influence of Southern towns and cities on die section, and a survey of the Democratic party in the prewar South. With regard to slavery, he urges a good deal more attention to the nonagricultural employment of Negro bondsmen , as weU as to die operations of the slave trade, 1800-1865. Concerning the actual war years, Mr. Donald recommends several thorough state-level studies, widi Virginia, North CaroUna, Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri being cited as monographicaUy underprivileged. Since that writing John G. Barrett's The Civil War in North Carolina and Turbulent Partnership: Missouri and the Union, by Wüliam E. Parrish, have emerged from the publishers. Neither, however, has yet breasted die gandet of critical assessment, and die significance of each remains to be vouchsafed. The Union's Northeastern states also merit 320 "further study," in Donald's words, to match die extensive concern already lavished on die Middle Western and Border states. Civü War farming was stiU a relatively untapped subject in 1961. "Soudiern agriculture during the war badly needs further study," Donald complained. ". . . Far too litde attention [also] has been given to die changes which occurred in Northern agriculture during die war." It now seems likely that Paul WaUace Gates's current project, undertaken as a volume in die U.S. Civü War Centennial Commission's "Impact Series," wül, if Mr. Gates is up to usual form, close tiiis breach most adequately. The foregoing recommendations notwidistanding, Mr. Donald evidentiy finds die Confederacy as a whole pretty incisively researched. But two major needs still exist, in his estímate: a "fuU-scale" treatment of Confederate journalism and a "magisterial" analysis of the CS. müitary forces on the order of Fred Shannon's classic, The Organization and Administration of the Union Army. A number of contributions proposed by Donald would do much to enlarge our understanding of the North. Needed, he writes, are studies of wartime economic and social developments simüar to those already devoted to die Confederacy. (Odier volumes in die Impact Series may even the sectional score here somewhat.) Disaffection and aUeged disloyalty in die Eastern states deserve die same scrutiny attracted by diese manifestations in die Midwest, Donald observes. He also laments the lack of any "full study" of Congress during die conflict, as he does die continuing absence of a "satisfactory comprehensive account of Federal wartime diplomacy." FinaUy, a new book-lengdi treatment of the famous Trent Affair would be mighty welcome. Reconstruction scholarship, in Donald's opinion, deserves some major replenishing. The Southern convict leasing system and Soudiern postwar education are specificaUy cited as potential topics of importance. He also sees additional "informative and impartial" analyses of the Southern Negro under Reconstruction as necessary. A good treatment of Maryland in the postwar period, says Donald, is long overdue. FuUlength revisions of the outdated WilUam Dunning approach are evidently still required for most of the Southern states. David Donald's suggestions by no means exhaust die possibiUties for new contributions, biographical studies being one important category about which he faded to comment...