Mason Dixon - Crucible of the Nation (Edward G. Gray, 2023)

(374 pages)

Grok's summary below.  I liked the book but it was kind of a slog in spots. Here are some ideas I took away - 

The idea of uncertain boundaries in the early colonial era, sometimes continuing quite a while.  Vague land grants, inexact or nonexistent maps. Settlers who don't know if they have title, don't know who is entitled to tax payments, etc.  Challenges of surveying - in merry old England you could line up a bell tower or whatnot whereas in this area it was a bunch of trees and other ephemera.

Similar - vague wording of authority granted to proprietors of the various colonies. In this immediate area - conflict between Lord Baltimore and successors (Maryland) and William Penn and successors (Pennsylvania).

Meeting the actual Mason and Dixon - very little biographical information, few details of their surveying expedition.  One of them later became obsessed with figuring out longitude (though I don't think he was part of the famous contest, per this). 

Interesting discussion about Lancaster (Charlie & Beth's area) - always part of Pennsylvania, a bit to the west and nearing Maryland; Pennsylvania ultimately succeed in pushing its border a bit south (at Maryland's expense).

Low Counties become Delaware.

Mason Dixon line as fraught for blacks - I hadn't thought about it but because getting into Pennsylvania was a very useful step in escaping - southerners very watchful in this area - tough for free blacks. 

Fugitive slave acts. Roger Taney and James Buchanan.  

Maryland and Delaware south of the Line and both permitted slavery; but they did not secede.

I didn't appreciate how exposed Washington DC was during Civil war times.  Maryland with slaveholders and mixed feelings about this; if it seceded, no way to get federal trips to DC without passing through rebel territory.  

Author with a couple obligatory potshots at capitalism as driving slavery. Does not mention that slavery existed pretty much always and everywhere, before any idea of capitalism was conceived; or that capitalist countries were the first to ban it.  Oh well.

Grok is kind of generic - 

Mason-Dixon: Crucible of the Nation by Edward G. Gray traces the history of the Mason-Dixon Line, a boundary that resolved a colonial dispute and became a symbol of America’s divisions. Established in 1767, the line settled a conflict between Pennsylvania and Maryland, sparked by Pennsylvania’s 1681 founding, Dutch settlers in Delaware, and rapid agricultural growth. This led to jurisdictional chaos, violence, and ethnic clashes with Lenape and Susquehannock natives. Historian Gray frames the line as a geopolitical border where colonial, imperial, Native, and U.S. sovereignties collided.

The book highlights the line’s transformation into a cultural and political divide. Pennsylvania’s 1780 abolition act positioned the Mason-Dixon as a boundary between free and slave states, intensified by the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, which made it a federal tool to recapture enslaved people. Gray details the region’s history of imperial intrigue, Native dispossession, and settler violence, featuring colonial grandees, Native diplomats, Quaker abolitionists, and Underground Railroad conductors navigating a volatile borderland.

Gray excels in analyzing the line’s role in pre-Civil War tensions between abolitionist Pennsylvania and slaveholding Maryland. Initially meant to end conflict, the line became a metaphor for a divided nation, reflecting struggles over slavery, freedom, and identity. Its significance faded post-Civil War but lingered through Jim Crow oppression. Deeply researched, Gray’s narrative reframes U.S. history by centering this overlooked region, revealing its national impact. Praised for its vivid storytelling, the book underscores the Mason-Dixon Line’s role in shaping America’s colonial roots, nation-building, and enduring racial divides.

The Good Lord Bird (James McBride, 2013)

(458 pages)

Book club selection (via Zach; session held (via Zoom) April 24, 2022).

I was wondering whether this 2013 book would be written the same way in 2022. All-talk wealthy urban whites now are considered  heroes instead of windbags - as unsparingly portrayed in this book. Would the author even use the term "slave" in 2022?  Would it be "enslaved person?"  Anyway.

Author clearly is a good writer, and the book moves right along - gives a glimpse into the world of Kansas-Nebraska when law and order barely existed.  Bad.

Interesting glimpses into slave relationship (even if we have no chance to have a good feel) - the danger of reading; "sir" every time; no backtalking; illuminating conversations about the pain of separation when family members sold down the river (still unimaginable).  Being a slave in any geography at any point in history seems mostly awful.

As Onion deals with Annie - says being invisible as male doesn't make much difference because invisible as a Negro anyway - third parties just see your race. Hmm.

I don't have a good feel for how much John Brown moved the needle.  He certainly was in the 1960s-1970s history books.  His sons play a prominent role. In this telling, he comes across as much like as an insane killer as anything else.

Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman appear.

Hymns of the Republic - The Story of the Final Year of the American Civil War (S.C. Gwynne, 2019)

(416 pages)

Book club selection (via Zach; session held (via Zoom) 23 August 2020).

Initially not a fan because it lacked battle detail, which I always enjoy.

But in the end the book works quite well - much more focus on personalities (North and South); that requires some summarizing, if not shortcutting, given that extensive biographies exist on most of these folks; but it feels like a good/fair overview.

Discussion of some of the political points was useful; Lincoln's need to obtain votes from the border states; the 1864 election; race issues had a certain immediacy compared to today.

The armies learning to "dig in" in a more systematic way that influenced war-making for a long time - hadn't thought of that - look at Petersburg, especially.  (Side thought: relatively little large-scale war happens after Civil War that tactics (perhaps, weaponry) to defeat trenches didn't develop (Spanish-American war; Franco-Prussian war; Russo-Japanese war; Boer war); perhaps this contributes to WWI trench stagnation, slaughter.  Interesting to think it was taking shape here in the Civil War.

Discussion of early Washington DC - small, yucky.  Interesting; it was a fairly new city without air conditioning.

U.S. Grant - gets a fair treatment, I think.  Still thinking about how interesting his memoirs are.

Sherman - he and Grant got it, in terms of modern (total) war.  Soldiers facing inevitable attrition rates; property destruction, etc.  Nothing glorious about it anymore, if there ever was.

Greek fire was mentioned for the second book club selection in a row (Confederate plotting here that came to naught).

Memoirs (Ulysses S. Grant, published 1885)

(780 pages)

Another book that I had never quite gotten to, despite repeatedly seeing recommendations.  Well worth reading.  Interesting that he came to write this in times of financial trouble (and eventually poor health) well after serving as president.  Of course not a professional writer - but much enjoyed his straightforward style.

Early portion regarding his selection to West Point and his challenges there.  Serves in Mexican War (and is bluntly critical of it); here he is exposed to many folks who he'll serve with or against in the Civil War.  Also doing quartermaster stuff which I suspect was very helpful down the line.  Transferred to the west coast in 1850s and the discussions of San Francisco (financial challenges sound familiar - boom-town cooks getting paid more than high ranking officers) and Oregon were interesting.

He was truly a nobody in military terms - basically out of the army when Civil War breaks out - took on some minor tasks for the army coming out of Illinois and had some value because of education and Mexican experience.

Consistent success leads to a larger role in the West.  Most of my Civil War reading has been weighted toward the war in the east - so it was interesting to read more about the west.  His discussion of the Vicksburg campaign was interesting - gives a sense of the challenges and risks of attacking an entrenched enemy while dealing with rivers, tributaries, flooding.  Great accomplishment that easily could have turned out badly.

As successes continue he takes over Army of the Potomac; the difficulties finishing off the Army of Northern Virginia take the war into 1865.  Grant as the relentless pursuer - Lincoln liked this after a string of too-cautious leaders - constantly calling for immediate pursuit if the enemy line is broken (this part sounded like Napoleon).  Appomattox and Lee's surrender. 

Discussions of interactions with Lincoln.  Candid assessments of many of the generals - Sherman and Sheridan his favorites, he also much liked David Porter (admiral key to Vicksburg and some subsequent campaigns).

He often quotes from orders issued during campaigns - the brevity and clarity is striking - these were handwritten often at night, often when the situation wasn't clear.  Impressive.

Yes it's autobiographical and sometimes you can sense when he's providing details intended to respond to criticism that had surfaced along the way.  But that's OK.

Recommended.

The Fall of the House of Dixie (Bruce Levine, 2013)

I seldom pick Civil War-era books, in part because I think I already picked up a fair amount of information about the topic.  Incorrectly.  Levine pulls together all sorts of primary source material to create a highly interesting discussion of what was going on in the South - social and political stuff, not so much from the oft-reported battlefields. I liked it a great deal.

And it wasn't just another consciousness-raising exercise about the awfulness of slavery (not to downplay its awfulness, but that topic has been done quite a few times).  The author gives lots of context around the various social classes in the South, their sometimes-overlapping and sometimes-diverging outlooks, etc.  Very helpful.

Philosophical underpinnings of slavery - how blacks were better off enslaved - did anyone really believe this (or just profess it for convenience sake)?

The power of the Southern states from Revolutionary War era on through the run-up to the Civil War - strong representation in all branches of government.

Complex politics of the Republican Party - the belief that slavery would die a natural death if prevented from spreading to new territories (thus Lincoln's aversion to outright prohibition in existing states).  Southerners believed this as well, leading to border wars and fights over opening up new states and territories to slavery.

Didn't realize that both sides desperately needed the manpower represented by blacks.  Confederacy refused to use them (other than the most menial of labor-support tasks) for pretty obvious reasons:  can you trust armed slaves?; how can you make them a soldier if you believe they are dimwitted, docile and incapable of independent action?; implicit equality with white fellow soldiers is a big problem in this belief system; etc.  North record not the greatest, but some blacks were given the opportunity to fight and took full advantage of it.

The very different uses of (and attitudes toward) slavery within the South.  Plantation society in just a few areas.  Lots of upland whites with no real investment in slavery - their enthusiasm for the war dimmed much more quickly.

Slave owners willingly sending their own sons to war, but refusing to release slaves for support activities.

How Northern attitudes (including Lincoln's) changed over the years - to unabashedly pushing for abolition.  Realized the middle ground didn't exist.

Democrats undermining Republican efforts.  On-the-ground challenges in the South - how to ensure that the war wasn't lost after the South surrendered?  This didn't work out so well (not the topic of this book, though there is another new book out on the topic of Reconstruction).

Touching stories of blacks being freed; families reunited after separation via slave sales; etc.

The South - burdened with, but dependent upon, an indefensible institution - with no choice but to defend it.