“No, No, No. That was the word that whispered in Robert E. Lee’s soul.” Could Gen. Robert E. Lee dismiss his anger toward Northern abolitionists and lead an invasion of his home state? So popular historian Thomas Fleming melodramatically divines Gen. Lee’s thoughts on rejecting the command of Union forces in his latest book, “A Disease in the Public Mind.” Fleming spends over a page on Lee’s musings without citing any of Lee’s letters or other personal papers. Consequently, Fleming’s work is nothing more than historical fiction masquerading as authoritative history.
Fleming offers a “new perspective” on why America fought the Civil War, suggesting that the root cause of the war was a “disease in the public mind.” This “twisted interpretation of reality” led Southerners to unreasonably fear race war caused by slave rebellion, and Northerners to believe “they were the predestined leaders of an independent America.”
To build his case, Fleming traces an assortment of events leading up to the Civil War, including the American reaction to the news of bloodbath in Haiti, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, and the Free Soil movement. Yet in an overzealous attempt to be “original,” he neglects to address two of the most prominent controversies of the era concerning slavery: the Dred Scott decision and the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
In his effort to make history exciting and relevant to the average reader, Fleming tells fantastic, descriptive narratives. However, his treatment of history falls short of satisfactory. Fleming fails to connect his subject matter together in a unifying framework, leaving his reader to tie together the pieces he presents.
Fleming also overuses adjectives and flowery language. He makes untenable assertions that rewrite American history, treating them as fact. At one point, Fleming asserts that Thomas Jefferson and the Founders did not intend or understand that “all men are created equal” would ever be used to challenge slavery. This is manifestly untrue. Jefferson included in his original draft of the Declaration a denunciation of slavery.
Fleming is unschooled in proper historical analysis. His treatment of antebellum America is biased and insufficient. He “examines” the “public mind”of the nation, but only cites the writings of a few prominent men. While William Lloyd Garrison may have believed in New England’s moral superiority, Fleming does not offer adequate evidence that this view was widespread.
Furthermore, he claims to know the intimate thoughts of prominent figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee, without citing primary documents like diaries or letters. He asks his readers to imagine what these men must have thought and felt. While this is an interesting activity for those with vivid imaginations, it does not constitute history.
Thomas Fleming’s latest book is catered to a mass audience. Its style and content are purposefully composed to make it exciting, but this treatment of history results in a lack of academic analysis and makes a mockery of the discipline of history. As a prolific author of best-selling novels and histories, Fleming ought to remember to distinguish between writing fiction and writing history.
