FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. - A new textbook on the Civil War co-authored by University of Arkansas historian Daniel Sutherland, offers some fresh perspective on this much-studied conflict, including the proposition that it could have - and probably should have - been avoided.

In "This Terrible War: the Civil War and its Aftermath," authors Michael Fellman of Simon Fraser University, Lesley Gordon of the University of Akron and Sutherland, professor of history at the U of A, attempt to impress upon readers the overwhelming national, regional and personal costs of the war.

"We noticed that other Civil War texts tended to glorify the war as a great national triumph in preserving the union and eradicating slavery," Sutherland said. "In reality, it was a brutal conflict that left more than a million Americans killed or maimed, not to mention the psychological scars."

Among the myths the authors confront is the assumption that the Civil War was undertaken to end slavery and that its outcome represented a moral victory for justice and freedom. In fact, the issue that split Northern and Southern politics and set the stage for war pertained to the expansion of slavery - whether it would be allowed in the Western territories, not whether it would be abolished nationwide.

Emancipation of the slaves didn’t become a Union priority until half-way through the war, and then only because it lent moral heft to the federal cause and renewed interest and support among the Northern public.

"Before the war, Lincoln was opposed to the expansion of slavery, but even he wasn’t talking about abolishing it," Sutherland said. "For that matter, he didn’t think war was a necessary option to resolve the issue. Right up to the beginning, he hoped to maintain peace and continue the debate."

Sutherland and his co-authors suggest that Lincoln may have been right, that the Civil War was neither necessary nor inevitable. Had compromise been reached - even if that compromise included allowing slavery into the territories - Sutherland and his colleagues believe the nation may have been better off.

"We realize our thesis is argumentative, but we’re weighing a token compromise against the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people, the physical, psychological and political scars, some of which can still be felt to this day," he explained.

In support of their position, the authors note that the introduction of slavery into the territories would not have expanded the slave trade substantially. The economic and climatic conditions of the western territories could not have sustained the practice of slavery for long, they assert, let alone have made it profitable.

Furthermore, abolitionists would have continued to protest, perhaps gaining membership and momentum from the seeming growth of slavery into the territories. In other words, political compromise could have saved thousands of American lives without closing the debate on slavery or securing a certain future for it, according to Sutherland.

Sutherland admits that hastening an end to slavery constitutes a significant benefit of the Civil War. But in "This Terrible War," he and his co-authors show that the aftermath of emancipation left free blacks in both the North and South as destitute and disenfranchised as they had been before. This grievous failure to follow through with justice or equality counts as one of the tragedies of the war.

"Abolishing slavery did not mean that the North fought for racial justice. That becomes clear in the years afterward," Sutherland stated. "Having emancipated the slaves, a lot of Northern politicians and citizens felt satisfied that their job had been done. And although they went on to pass the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments to the Constitution, they didn’t make sure those amendments were respected or enforced as they should have been."

This examination of the after-effects of the war helps set "This Terrible War" apart from other Civil War textbooks. Progressing chronologically, the book begins with the rumblings of conflict that preceded war, details the war itself in depth, and continues its discussion through Reconstruction up to 1896, when the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision legalized segregation.

Within their extended history of the Civil War, the authors give special attention to topics that many textbooks gloss over or neglect altogether. Among these topics are the roles that women played in the war as nurses, civil servants and (sometimes) soldiers. Sutherland and his colleagues describe the plight of Southern refugees, driven from their homes by battle, and they record the brutal guerilla warfare that took the fighting beyond the battlefield. They even discuss the progress of western expansion, which continued throughout the Civil War era, somewhat augmented by people seeking to escape the carnage back east.

"This isn’t a glorification, not at all a romantic look at the war. We tried to be as thorough and realistic as we could," Sutherland said. "And I think that what the Civil War did to this country and what it meant to people comes across all the more powerfully because of that."