Scan barcode
dtab62's review against another edition
5.0
Hymns of the Republic is an eminently readable, fast-paced account of the last year of the Civil War. S.C. Gwynne manages to include several biographical sketches into the narrative, which readers who are not familiar with Civil War personalities will find helpful and informative.
citizen_noir's review against another edition
3.0
I’m a big fan of S.C. Gwynne’s nonfiction. EMPIRE OF THE SUMMER is an epic retelling of the forty year conflict between Comanche Indians and whites for control of the American West, told partly through the story of the abduction of Cynthia Ann Parker. REBEL YELL is the biography of Confederate general Stonewall Jackson, and perhaps my all time favorite book about the U.S. Civil War. I love the way Gwynne inhabits his characters in these books, bringing them to life on the page the way few historians are able to do. I tore through both of these books as fast as possible, completely engrossed in the stories.
Perhaps it’s my admiration for Gwynne’s past work that leads me to give HYMNS OF THE REPUBLIC: THE STORY OF THE FINAL YEAR OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR such a lackluster review of three stars.
Part of the problem is the decision to write only about the final year of the war with single chapters devoted to the perspectives of such titanic figures as Grant, Lee, Lincoln, and Davis, as well as “lesser known” leaders like John Mosby, Philip Sheridan, William Sherman, and Clara Barton. While many of these chapters are solid, the jumping around of perspective causes one to lose the main organizational structure of the book: the final year of the war. I also think there’s just not that much more that can be rehashed about the Civil War.
While Gwynne is a strong writer, there isn’t a lot of new information that I gained by reading this. I would make exceptions to this statement for the excellent chapters devoted to Clara Barton and John Mosby - I would love to see him tackle biographies of both individuals.
Perhaps it’s my admiration for Gwynne’s past work that leads me to give HYMNS OF THE REPUBLIC: THE STORY OF THE FINAL YEAR OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR such a lackluster review of three stars.
Part of the problem is the decision to write only about the final year of the war with single chapters devoted to the perspectives of such titanic figures as Grant, Lee, Lincoln, and Davis, as well as “lesser known” leaders like John Mosby, Philip Sheridan, William Sherman, and Clara Barton. While many of these chapters are solid, the jumping around of perspective causes one to lose the main organizational structure of the book: the final year of the war. I also think there’s just not that much more that can be rehashed about the Civil War.
While Gwynne is a strong writer, there isn’t a lot of new information that I gained by reading this. I would make exceptions to this statement for the excellent chapters devoted to Clara Barton and John Mosby - I would love to see him tackle biographies of both individuals.
tylercritchfield's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
4.25
I feel like the Civil War is one of those topics that's important to revisit regularly. I liked how this one only covered the final year of the war, similar to how McCullough's 1776 covers a single year. It let the author go deeper on certain events and individuals that often get passed over in larger histories.
tarmstrong112's review against another edition
2.0
A very interesting topic but an ultimately disappointing execution. The author's blatant pro-Southern bent infects this book from the start and it really hampers his ability to tell the story of the final year of the American Civil War. The notable commanders on the Union side (Grant, Sherman et al) are portrayed as extremely flawed or stupid people who could only win the war because they ultimately had more men and material while Confederate leaders (this author loves to pray at the alter of Lee; Forrest and Mosby are treated particularly well) are honourable men fighting their honourable cause. It's a tired and incorrect way to approach this topic and has been thoroughly debunked by better histories of the war.
The author's assertions about what actually happened during the surrender at Appomattox were interesting albeit face saving for the South. The Union generals come off as gloating idiots while the Southern generals come off as stoic, honourable men. It just all a bit off, and reading a different, perhaps less biased account of the events in this book would be beneficial to anyone interested in this interesting time in history. A disappointing book to say the least.
The author's assertions about what actually happened during the surrender at Appomattox were interesting albeit face saving for the South. The Union generals come off as gloating idiots while the Southern generals come off as stoic, honourable men. It just all a bit off, and reading a different, perhaps less biased account of the events in this book would be beneficial to anyone interested in this interesting time in history. A disappointing book to say the least.
agruenbaum's review against another edition
4.0
I have read/listened to the civil war through the eyes of one person. This telling avoiding the depth and brought various viewpoints together. A good listen!
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
2.0
Kind of typical Gwynne book. Highly uneven. Not as bad as Rebel Yell, but not good.
In the first 30 pages, he has:
1. Twisted Lincoln’s slave-related actions of the first two years out of context, including trying to make him into an abolitionist at the start of the war;
2. Absolved, or at least partially absolved, Forrest of Fort Pillow, when the truth is that, by the laws of war, Forrest, as commander of troops in the field, was responsible for the massacre by failure to prevent it even if he didn’t order it. (To the degree Gwynne does acknowledge any blame for Forrest, it’s in a footnote.
3. Absolved Forrest of Fort Pillow again by assuming that his original surrender offer to the Union garrison included black troops that Forrest may not have been aware were part of the garrison, or even if he were aware, assuming that they were covered under “troops”
Gwynne in the next 100 pages then pens great psychological vignettes of Grant and Lee. On Lee, I wonder if he stayed in the military to stay away from his wife, after reading this.
And then? Errors. No, Arlington is not part of DC and never was. The Treasury, under Chase or whomever, might have been the top Cabinet job for higher-dollar patronage, but the Post Office was for everyday job patronage. Errors of interpretation like the latter? OK, that's more on the author. But, bad copy editing lets in the former.
That said, he mentions General and Congresscritter Frank Blair attacking Chase on the floor of the House, but fails to mention his brother, Monty Blair, was .... Postmaster General!
Speaking of that, he never covers some of Lincoln's larger political moves involving his Cabinet. Like booting Monty as part of a quid pro quo for Fremont ending his campaign.
Then, more great stuff, on Sherman. Not so much the psychological profile, unlike with Grant and Lee, but a straightforward note that he wasn’t that good of a field commander. He’s totally right that Thomas’ corps, not Sherman’s, won Missionary Ridge.
That said, we next get back to questionableness. Although the battles of Franklin and Nashville weren’t important strategically, and Wilson’s ride through Alabama might be too overlooked elsewhere, to not give the Nashville campaign more than a paragraph is criminal. Maybe more criminal, given that Gwynne does cover infighting between generals at times, is not looking at how much Grant through Thomas under the bus as part of running Sherman up the flagpole.
Then, it’s back to good stuff. The Petersburg-to-Appomattox chapters, though much shorter than, say, “Nine Days to Appomattox,” has a couple of great vignettes, above all the picture of Meade’s attempt at glory-hogging.
Had Gwynne not opened with Fort Pillow AND with his particular take on it, I might have given this a fourth star. But, the way he did begin left too much of a bad taste in my mouth. And, thinking more about how much he overlooked on the Cabinet tussles and other things, I dropped it another star because at 4 1/3 stars average rating, it's overrated.
In the first 30 pages, he has:
1. Twisted Lincoln’s slave-related actions of the first two years out of context, including trying to make him into an abolitionist at the start of the war;
2. Absolved, or at least partially absolved, Forrest of Fort Pillow, when the truth is that, by the laws of war, Forrest, as commander of troops in the field, was responsible for the massacre by failure to prevent it even if he didn’t order it. (To the degree Gwynne does acknowledge any blame for Forrest, it’s in a footnote.
3. Absolved Forrest of Fort Pillow again by assuming that his original surrender offer to the Union garrison included black troops that Forrest may not have been aware were part of the garrison, or even if he were aware, assuming that they were covered under “troops”
Gwynne in the next 100 pages then pens great psychological vignettes of Grant and Lee. On Lee, I wonder if he stayed in the military to stay away from his wife, after reading this.
And then? Errors. No, Arlington is not part of DC and never was. The Treasury, under Chase or whomever, might have been the top Cabinet job for higher-dollar patronage, but the Post Office was for everyday job patronage. Errors of interpretation like the latter? OK, that's more on the author. But, bad copy editing lets in the former.
That said, he mentions General and Congresscritter Frank Blair attacking Chase on the floor of the House, but fails to mention his brother, Monty Blair, was .... Postmaster General!
Speaking of that, he never covers some of Lincoln's larger political moves involving his Cabinet. Like booting Monty as part of a quid pro quo for Fremont ending his campaign.
Then, more great stuff, on Sherman. Not so much the psychological profile, unlike with Grant and Lee, but a straightforward note that he wasn’t that good of a field commander. He’s totally right that Thomas’ corps, not Sherman’s, won Missionary Ridge.
That said, we next get back to questionableness. Although the battles of Franklin and Nashville weren’t important strategically, and Wilson’s ride through Alabama might be too overlooked elsewhere, to not give the Nashville campaign more than a paragraph is criminal. Maybe more criminal, given that Gwynne does cover infighting between generals at times, is not looking at how much Grant through Thomas under the bus as part of running Sherman up the flagpole.
Then, it’s back to good stuff. The Petersburg-to-Appomattox chapters, though much shorter than, say, “Nine Days to Appomattox,” has a couple of great vignettes, above all the picture of Meade’s attempt at glory-hogging.
Had Gwynne not opened with Fort Pillow AND with his particular take on it, I might have given this a fourth star. But, the way he did begin left too much of a bad taste in my mouth. And, thinking more about how much he overlooked on the Cabinet tussles and other things, I dropped it another star because at 4 1/3 stars average rating, it's overrated.
jwest87's review against another edition
2.0
First someone with zero knowledge of the Civil War from 1864-65, this may be rated higher. But to put it frankly, it's pretty broad and does not offer any new insight.