Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

16 results

Lincoln and the Democrats
  • The Politics of Opposition in the Civil War
  • Mark E. Neely, Jr
  • Published online:
    02 March 2017
    Print publication:
    30 January 2017
  • Lincoln and the Democrats describes the vexatious behavior of a two-party system in war and points to the sound parts of the American system which proved to be the country's salvation: local civic pride, and quiet nonpartisanship in mobilization and funding for the war, for example. While revealing that the role of a noxious 'white supremacy' in American politics of the period has been exaggerated - as has the power of the Copperheads - Neely revives the claim that the Civil War put the country on the road to 'human rights', and also uncovers a previously unnoticed tendency toward deceptive and impractical grandstanding on the Constitution during war in the United States.

  • Chapter 1 - Beyond Politics: How the North Won the Civil War

  • Mark E. Neely, Jr, Pennsylvania State University
  • Book:
    Lincoln and the Democrats
    Published online:
    02 March 2017
    Print publication:
    30 January 2017, pp 10-44
    • Chapter
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • The Presidents Politics Made

  • Mark E. Neely, Jr.
  • Journal:
    Journal of Policy History / Volume 8 / Issue 2 / April 1996
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    14 October 2011, pp. 227-238

  • At one time, political science greatly influenced the writing of American history. Pioneers of “the new political history” brought critical elections theory, roll-call analysis, the idea of party systems, and a model of ethno-cultural voting to bear on the Jacksonian era, the problem of the coming of the Civil War, Gilded Age politics, and Progressivism in ways that permanently altered interpretation. The influence of political science is not very great now. Political history itself shriveled before the New Social History. Massive energies were applied to writing the history of people who could not vote during most or all of the nineteenth century. The old political models soon had a nonbehaviorist rival, born and bred within the discipline of history itself, the idea of a persistent and transforming “republican ideology,” first and most powerfully described by Bernard Bailyn in 1967. Even within political history, the old models of voting behavior borrowed from political science left an implausible and unsatisfying gulf between voting and platform, political behavior and belief, practice and ideology. The disciplines turned inward again.

  • 2 - Was the Civil War a Total War?

  • Edited by Stig Förster, Universität Bern, Switzerland, Jorg Nagler, Christian-Albrechts Universität zu Kiel, Germany
  • Book:
    On the Road to Total War
    Published online:
    05 January 2013
    Print publication:
    28 February 1997, pp 29-52

  • Summary

    In a recent article, Charles Strozier, a Lincoln biographer and co-director of the Center on Violence and Human Survival, argues that the United States' demand for unconditional surrender in World War II, and ultimately the use of two atomic bombs on Japan, found antecedents in President Lincoln's surrender terms in the Civil War.

    Precedent, it might be said, is everything in human affairs. [Franklin D.] Roosevelt's inventive reading of the surrender at Appomattox draws us back into that most curious of American events, the Civil War, as the crucible in which the doctrine of unconditional surrender was forged. In this first of modern wars, a new technological capacity to kill and destroy emerged, along with a strikingly new set of ideas about military strategy, the relationship between a fighting army and noncombatant civilians, and the criteria that determine when war is over. The latter are of enormous significance and relate directly to the brutality, length, and totality of twentieth-century warfare.

    The crucial term here is not unconditional surrender, a phrase perhaps coined by Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at Fort Donelson early in 1862, but the ideal of totality in war, a concept that comes from our own century. “It was Lincoln, Grant, and the Civil War that incorporated total war into modern experience,” Strozier maintains. “There is a clear connection here between the emerging nation-state, a new type of deadly warfare, and an ending in which an enemy capitulates completely. To put it epigrammatically, the totality of the modern state seems to require unconditional surrender as a necessary correlative of its total wars. The American Civil War brought that into focus.”