Book Review and Highlights:
“The Demon of Unrest,” by Erik Larson

Introduction

In soccer, there’s a term for the most egregious of errors: “an own goal.”

An own goal is when a team, off a bad bounce or a poor pass, scores on its own goal, giving its opponent a free point.

It’s an unforced error. 

Erik Larson’s latest book, which centers on Fort Sumter in South Carolina as the flashpoint for the Civil War, details the miscommunication, absurdly optimistic assumptions about both enemy mindset and military might, and rogue decisions and communications made by officials on both sides that led, eventually, to the South’s attack on Fort Sumter, sparking the deadliest conflict in American history. 

In other words, a series of unforced errors—own goals—led to an historic and catastrophic amount of American blood spilled. 

Decent into darkness 

Larson’s previous books show his curiosity for, and diligence in researching, not just catastrophic moments in history, but the inciting events, large and small, that lead mankind astray and off a cliff. 

Once again, Larson uses that formula in “The Demon of Unrest,” showing us the strategic errors and miscalculations from both North and South that led to the Fort Sumter attack. 

Fragility, faux-paus, and false beliefs 

For the North, the key mistakes included the inaction of James Buchanan, the president who preceded Lincoln. It’s as if he peered over the edge of the historical moment, and decided he wanted no part of the treacherous trip ahead. He left Lincoln a simmering pot, near the boiling point, with no easy way forward. 

Lincoln, Secretary of State Seward, and other officials overestimated the allegiance of Southerners to the Union and the depth of their delusions about slavery. In the South, a badly misguided sense of pride, coupled with strong economic incentives to continue slavery, led to delusions that slavery was just, and attacks against it were attacks against the character and morality of southern citizens. 

Research rigor 

As always, Larson’s book is exhaustively researched, pulling from letters, newspaper accounts, personal journals and government documents. He doesn’t take theatrical license here to write in the historical fiction format as he has some previous books, such as The Devil in The White City. As a result the storytelling isn’t quite as smooth an engaging as some previous Larson titles. 

But nonetheless, the book is a captivating read, opening at Fort Sumter before the attack and circling back to close the book there after the Civil War’s end, and remains engrossing all the way through. 

Personal Lens

For me, the book stands out in two key ways. First, the aforementioned errors in communication and the over-optimistic beliefs about the fortitude of the other side, and a belief that any conflict would be brief and largely bloodless. (We see these assumptions about war over and over again thoughout history -- leaders intoxicated by a belief in a quick and easy victory.

Second is the decision so many people had to make about where they were from, where their loyalties lay, and what that meant for their futures (something I write more about here). Their choices often pitted them against their sense of heritage, home, and family.

Conclusion 

If you’re a fan of American history, “The Demon of Unrest” it’s a no-brainer with compelling storytelling and exhaustive research. It also carries warnings about the fragility of society and government and the importance of being honest and clear about the motivations and tenacity of your opponent as you face down the possibility of war.

Five quick quotes 

Five quotes on how delusion and miscommunication set the path to war:

“South Carolina Attorney General Hayne and U.S. War Secretary Holt both seemed to have little grasp of how important Fort Sumter was to the other.”

“ … the South most resented was the inalterable fact that the North, like the rest of the modern world, condemned slavery as a fundamental evil. In so doing, abolitionists and their allies impugned the honor of the entire Southern white race, for if slavery was indeed evil, then the South itself was evil, and its echelons of gentlemen, the chivalry, were nothing more than moral felons.”

“Now, on the table before the three men, lay the solution, a gift not quite from heaven and not quite honorably acquired, but nonetheless in their possession, evidence that even Anderson did not believe in the Union’s position. That crucial phrase: “though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced.” The letter made its way to the press.”

“The seven clauses underscored the fact that for all of the South’s efforts to blame the crisis on Northern tyranny in imposing tariffs, collecting revenue, and ordaining “internal improvements,” the crux of the crisis was in fact slavery.”

“Forsyth revealed a flawed perception of the mood in the North, equivalent to the North’s own failure to correctly gauge the passions of the South. “The outside pressure in favor of peace grows stronger every hour,” Forsyth wrote.”