REVIEWSrnAn Honorable Defeatrnby Clyde WilsonrnThe Confederate Warrnby Gary W. GallagherrnCambridge: Harvard University Press;rn218pp.,$2i.95rnImagine America invaded by a foreignrnpower, one that has quadruple thernpopulation and industrial base. Imaginernthat this enemy has free access to thernworld’s goods as well as an inexhaustiblernsupply of cannon fodder from the proletariatrnof other countries, while Americarnitself is tightly blockaded from the outsidernworld. New York and Cincinnatirnhave been taken. For months, Bostonrnand Chicago have been under constantrnsiege, the civilian population drivenrnfrom their homes. Enemy forces roamrnover large parts of the country burningrnthe homes, tools, and food of the noncombatantsrnin a campaign of deliberaternterrorism. Nearly 85 percent of the nation’srnable-bodied men (up to 50 years ofrnage) have been called to arms. Battlefieldrncasualties have run to 39 percentrnand deaths amount to nearly half of that,rnfar exceeding those from any other war.rnOn the other hand, the enemy, thoughrnits acts and domestic propaganda indicaternotherwise, is telling the Americanrnpopulation that it wants only peace andrnthe restoration of the status quo antebellum.rnLay down your arms and all will bernas before.rnWhat would be our state of morale inrnsuch conditions? Americans have neverrnsuffered such misfortune, have they?rnAlas, they have. This was the experiencernof the Southern people from 1861-1865rnin their lost War for Independence.rnGary Gallagher has established himselfrnof late as one of the leading historiansrnof the period, a somewhat surprising andrnconsoling occurrence since he is an oldfashionedrnhistorian who relies on evidencernand is not afraid to challenge fashionablerninterpretation by followingrnwhere the evidence leads. The ConfederaternWar examines with skill and carefulrnresearch the forgotten Southern experience,rnwhich was marked by greater sufferingrnand sacrifice than that ever madernor endured by any other large group ofrnAmericans. Gallagher presents an importantrnand ignored perspective for thosernwho wish to grasp the sweep of Americanrnhistory in the cold light of reality ratherrnthan through the rose-colored glasses ofrndemocratic globalism.rnWar, in the experience of the Americanrnpeople, has typically brought sufferingrnand death to only a small part of therninarticulate youthful population, mostlyrnfrom the poorer classes; dislocation andrndiscomfort to a larger segment; highrnwages and profits in general; and a greatrnglow of patriotism and righteousness tornthe many. This was war as the Northrnknew it (except that dissent was a greatrndeal more widespread than has been admitted),rnsetting the pattern for subsequentrnAmerican conflicts. (We onlyrnhave to think of the delight with which sornmany celebrated, from the comfort ofrntheir recliners, the incineration of Iraqirnwomen and children.) It was not so,rnhowever, for the Southern people in thatrnperiod. (Our author says nothing, ofrncourse, about Reconstruction.)rnHow hard the Southerners struggledrnfor independence from the AmericanrnEmpire has been, and continues to be,rnsuppressed by a nationalist culture thatrncan only wonder: Ffow could any grouprnpossibly have dissented from the greatestrngovernment on earth? But a very largernnumber of Americans did not consent tornthat government (the regime, after all,rnwas supposedly founded on the consentrnof the governed). They were willing tornput their dissent on the line in a greaterrnsacrifice than any large group of Americansrnhas ever been called upon to make.rnUntil finally, as a disappointed Union officerrnquoted by Gallagher remarked:rn”the rebellion [was] worn out rather thanrnsuppressed.”rnThe burden of The Confederate War isrnthat military defeat—not lack of faith inrnthe cause, internal class struggle, want ofrnsufficient nationalist theory, or any otherrnsuch thing offered by recent historians asrnexplanations —ended the War for Independence.rnHistoriographically, Gallagher’srnwork is juxtaposed, with evidencernand close reasoning, with a raft ofrnliterature speculating upon the weaknessesrnof the South. One learns very earlyrnin academic historical training that arnsure road to success lies in finding a newrntwist on South-hating, supported by quotationsrnselected out of context and referencesrnto currently fashionable abstractionsrnthat pass for reasoning, such as thatrnthe South was not only evil but weak andrnstupid, its War for Independence havingrnbeen waged ineffectively, inadequately,rnand incompetently. I can cite severalrncases where books along these lines haverncatapulted their authors into professionalrncelebrity and endowed chairs. Writingrnhistory is easy if you only need theory andrnnot evidence.rnGallagher, by contrast, has documentedrnthe obvious: the South was militarilyrndefeated only after an extraordinary effortrnunmatched before or since by Americans.rnGiven the sad state of Americanrnscholarship, to accomplish that much isrncause for celebration.rnClyde Wilson is a professor of Americanrnhistory at the University of SouthrnCarolina.rnWaugh AfterrnWaughrnhy Andrei NavrozovrnWill This Do? The First Fifty Years ofrnAuberon Waugh: An Autobiographyrnby Auberon WaughrnNew York: Carroll & Graf Publishers;rn288 pp., $24.00rnWhen, after a stint in the BritishrnArmy which left him crippled forrnlife, Auberon Waugh went up to Oxfordrnin 1959, by his own admission he knewrnnothing of the place apart from what hernhad read in his father’s novel, BridesheadrnRevisited, describing the Oxford of 35rnyears earlier—and in Sinister Street, portrayingrnOxford 25 years before that, andrnZuleika Dobson, ten years earlier still.rnHe was appalled, he recalls, “by how fewrn28/CHRONICLESrnrnrn