Who would you consider to be some of the best and worst Civil War historians based on the multiple books written about this topic over the years? Some names to think about include Douglas S. Freeman, James M. McPherson, Gary W. Gallagher, James I. Robertson, and William C. Davis, among others. Can anybody think of any who you consider to be biased or fair in their research? If there are other names you can add, feel free to do so.
shareDoes anyone know of any documentaries or literature that discuss the true beginning of the civil war?
The Missouri compromise, Bleeding Kansas, or anything about the Missouri secessionist convention that happened months before Fort Sumter? Or the fact that Lincoln had our governor forced out of Jefferson City, along with all those who voted for secession, then installed a military dictatorship into power? Perhaps the government wants to white wash the genocide at West Port? Or perhaps it doesn't want the people to know it unlawfully occupied my beloved state months before the war "officially" began. Why, in the name of God, hasn't the nation been told of these atrocities. One third of the state was either killed or displaced by 1862. Damn the lies and the folks that have revised history. We Missourians know. What Lyon did to our people makes Sherman's march to the sea and the Battle of Shiloh look like a Sunday picnic. And if the government was willing to do that to its own people, then it will have no reservations of doing it again, if it sees fit. Americans, never forget the sovereignty of your respective states and commonwealths under the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It just might save Atlanta from burning again.
Even more so, why has this information been hushed up for so long? Why doesn't anyone ever discusses the fact that Lincoln marched 10,000 troops into Missouri just days after he was inaugurated? Why hasn't this story ever been told?
Thousands of Missourians fought for the CSA (volunteers and patriots) and thousands more in the Union (mostly through conscription). And thousands lost their lives. But now these damned politicians want us to take down the battle flag that flies over the Confederate memorial in Higginsville, MO, just because a few brainwashed deviants decry racism? What kind of tyranny is this that has befallen my people 150 years after your God forsaken Union was restored by raping and desecrating our land? And now we can't honor our dead by flying the flag they gave their lives for? To hell with you. And to hell with those who write history as they see politically expedient, while ignoring the one UNDENIABLE TRUTH of the war. NORTHERN AGGRESSION.
PS: Jayhawkers, permanent yankees, carpetbaggers, skalawags, race baiters, bluebellies, revisitionists, Lincolnites NEED NOT REPLY
Heroes of Missouri: Jo Shelby, Sterling Price, Frank & Jesse James, Cole Younger, Bill Anderson, William Quantrill
PS: Jayhawkers, permanent yankees, carpetbaggers, skalawags, race baiters, bluebellies, revisitionists, Lincolnites NEED NOT REPLY
We get it. You are a racist and hate having a black president. Go back to your tea party meetings.
If the subject wasn't so serious, your post would be downright laughable. People of the South have spent the past 150 years re-writing history to the point where millions of otherwise intelligent, rational people will argue vehemently that the war was fought over states rights by noble men defending their homes and families from plunder and pillage by a larger, more industrialized north who cared only about putting the South "in its place" and could not have cared less about slavery. Facts are facts. This war was caused by a very small group of land-owning plutocrats whose ridiculous wealth and lifestyle was wrapped up in human slaves. They spent 80+ years trying to maintain this horrific wrong and (legislatively speaking) picked fights over it constantly. Otherwise, thoughtful, intelligent men backed down from these people over and over again and compromised over and over again until, finally, they called the nation's bluff one time too many and paid the price. If you honestly expect us to shed tears over ending slavery, you are crazy as well as a racist.
Very well said.
shareI read Noah Andre Trudeau's Southern Storm: Sherman's March to the Sea a short while ago and found it to be an excellent book. Has anyone read his Gettysburg book, and if so would you recommend it?
I also just finished Alvin M. Josephy's The Civil War in the American West, which was an interesting look at some of the war's more obscure campaigns.
"Paper can be ripped - like your HEAD!"
Trudeau's book is excellent.
Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.
A rather new and well written book is "Vicksburg" by Winston Groom. He also wrote "Shrouds of Glory", which recounted the disasterous campaign of John Bell Hood after the sacking of Atlanta. You may have heard of him from his fictional works... the most notable of which was "Forrest Gump". He's actually an excellent historical author as well.
His previous works include "Patriotic Fire" (Andrew Jackson @ New Orleans), 1942 (1942 in the Pacific) and a few others. Highly recommend all. One of those authors that inspire one to read their entire catalogue... (of non-fiction, anyways)...
Winston Churchill has a good section in his 4 volume "History of the English Speaking People" regarding the war. He was rather impressed with Stonewall Jackson, as students of military history are wont to do.
I'll check out my library... I know there's a few other top authors heretofore unmentioned in this message string that I've encountered.
Jerry
One could certainly argue that other historians possess more knowledge, but, as far as readability of their written words and ability to tell the stories and make one feel the ebb and flow of the war as it felt to those "living it" (and, really, a HUGE part of being an historian is about imparting the information to others in a way they can understand), nobody... and I do mean NOBODY... can be mentioned in the same breath as Shelby Foote. 3,000+ pages of text in his "Narrative" and I couldn't put any of the three volumes down until I was done them all! ...and I've reread them many times since. I defy any of you to find an author of ANY subject including fiction who has written a true "page-turner" of 3,000 pages, let alone an historian! Heck, find me a 300 page history book that is as exciting and well-written and I'll eat my hat.
shareI just finished Stephen W. Sears's Chancellorsville, and I have to say I don't care for the man's writing. His scholarship is above reproach, but I find him a dry writer who focuses interminably on the minutae of battles. This book really threw me off-kilter, however, with its dogged insistence that Joe Hooker was not to blame for the disaster at Chancellorsville. I'm sympathetic to Hooker myself, thinking his distinguished record as a division/corps commander is unfairly overlooked, but Sears's argument reeks of special pleading. Plus his attempts to pawn off responsibility on Hooker's subordinates seem disingenuous in light of his portrayal of McClellan in Landscape Turned Red.
I don't know if this would qualify him for the "worst" category, and I know Sears is generally acclaimed, but I'm probably not going to bother with Sears's other works after this one and Landscape Turned Red.
"Shooting... that's how people get shot."
I wouldn't bother with his "Gettysburg" book, its really just a rehash of other better written ones. I kinda of agree with you on Hooker. The man seems to have been a very good Corps Commander but he rubbed everyone the wrong way. It seems that all the men who knew him in the "old army" Halleck, Grant, Sherman, et al disliked him. And same is true of his AoP comrades, Meade, Couch, Reynolds, Schofield- who all despised him. He seems to have done better with people who didn't know him very well, Butterfield, Sickles, Stoneman, etc.
OTOH, maybe Lincoln shouldn't have canned him after Chancellorville, after the battle he was right about Harper's Ferry, right about attacking AP Hill when Lee's army was strung out and heading north, and right about going straight for Richmond. Maybe, C-ville would've taught him a lesson. He seems to have been aggressive in every other battle.
But to come back to the book. Yes, its pretty dry and Sears' defense of Hooker is very lame. The bottom line is that Hooker had Meade, Couch, and Reynolds, telling him correct course of action throughout the battle and Hooker ignoring it and taking counsel of his fears. And yes, Howard and Stoneman let him down, but that happened in almost every CW battle. Look at Burnside.
And had it been Little Mac, Sears would've ripped him to shreds.
Just FYI. James I. "Bud" Robertson is retiring from his teaching position at VA Tech at the end of this school year.
shareSears really got on my nerves acting as if Hooker "following through" on his initial strategy of "make Lee attack me" was smart after the events of May 2nd. Hooker had as many troops in reserve as Lee had in his whole army that day (was Reynolds's I Corps even engaged?), and yet he did nothing on May 3rd but let Lee do what he wanted. That isn't the mark of a good general, in my book. He had a great strategy but completely botched the execution, rendering the first point moot.
The personal dislike of Hooker was well-deserved. His conniving behind Burnside's back after Fredericksburg (to be fair, he wasn't alone) and his sniping with Sherman and Howard during the Atlanta Campaign, did him no good credit. Neither did his general boasting and arrogance or moral lapses. A shame that he couldn't tamp down his ego a few notches: his performances at the Seven Days, Antietam and Chattanooga were commendable, and his administrative skills rivalled McClellan's. He didn't have the temprament to be a subordinate, but he didn't have the skills to lead an army.
"Shooting... that's how people get shot."
Sears really got on my nerves acting as if Hooker "following through" on his initial strategy of "make Lee attack me" was smart after the events of May 2nd.That's unbelievable. Was it smarter than following through on a maneuver that almost puts you behind your intended target? Does he think cowering and indecision are better than a solid battle plan that most certainly would have succeeded in at least driving Lee from his position? I can't remember when I've read a more foolish statement.
Just so no one thinks I'm misquoting Sears (from the Mariner paperback edition):
"[Hooker] was sure there had to be a better way to fight and win... than with head-on assaults. Of all Joe Hooker's new ideas about army command, this thought was as innovative as any of them." (p. 118) [if you ignore the Peninsular Campaign, sure, but Sears wrote an entire book on that and has no excuse]
"Hooker's appraisal - that the enemy must ingloriously fly or... give battle "on our own ground" - was a precisely accurate statement of the case." (p. 192) [not untrue but rather leading, yes?]
[referring to Hooker's reaction to Sickles's report of Jackson's "retreat"] "That moment... may be taken as Fighting Joe Hooker's supreme moment of the Chancellorsville campaign." (p. 269) [Yes, misinterpreting Lee's intentions and thus acting inappropriately is Hooker's "supreme moment."]
"[On May 3rd Hooker] began to think how he might take advantage of the new situation... "Genl. Hooker," Warren explained, "made his dispositions accordingly and intends to flank and destroy Jackson." The second half of his plan depended upon John Sedgwick and the VI Corps." (p. 303) [What about Meade and Reynolds, whose corps had been idle on the 2nd? Why rely on Sedgwick, who was miles away and checked by a division-sized force?]
I think the low-point had to be when Lee left 25,000 men to face Hooker and took the rest to destroy Sedgwick. Hooker with 75,000 men did nothing, but waited for Sedgwick to come to his rescue (!) - It needs to be realized that almost 50,000 of the Hookers men saw very little action. The I, II, V Corps had only lost 3,000 men or about 6 percent. Lee on the other hand had lost almost 12,000 out of about 55,000.
There was no reason for Hooker to retreat across the river. He outnumber Lee and with almost 50,000 fresh men, who'd done little fighting, all he had to do was attack or wait for Lee to throw his army against his entrenchments.
But he lost his nerve again.
I'm reading To the Gates of Richmond right now and I have to say, it's a lot better than Landscape Turned Red or Chancellorsville. Maybe Sears writes better in a broader, campaign-level context than with single battles.
"That's what the elves call Justice of the Unicorn!"
I recently read Battle Cry of Freedom and I'd say that's fully deserving of its reputation as the best one-volume history of the war.
I just got Stackpole's From Cedar Mountain to Antietam this week and am enjoying it again. One of my very favorite Civil War books.
I'm hoping to read Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants and more of Bruce Catton's stuff in the near-future.
"That's what the elves call Justice of the Unicorn!"
I recently finished The Confederate Alamo: Bloodbath at Petersburg's Fort Gregg on April 2nd, 1865, by John J. Fox and Champion Hill: Decisive Battle for Vicksburg, by Timothy B. Smith and both were VERY well written. Unfortunately, neither has written a lot of books, but I plan on reading other titles. Both authors took battles that aren't well covered and did an outstanding job of covering them. That's what I want in CW books. I don't think I really need another Gettysburg book.
Russel Beatie's history of the Army of the Potomac is the flip side of the coin. Commendable in their detail (2176 pages gets you to May, 1862), but the writing isn't great and oh, the mistakes!! Plus, he's a McClellan fan, which get my goat!
Don't go near my daughter again.
Can I use her underwear to make soup?
A 2,200-page McClellan apologia? I'll pass.
The other books sound great though.
"That's what the elves call Justice of the Unicorn!"
In the past few days I've read:
Like Men of War: Black Troops in the Civil War - Noah Andre Trudeau. Trudeau's definitely climbing up my list of favorites. He has a broad enough focus to include the entire war while still describing specific engagements in detail, and employs quotations, testimony, diary excerpts, etc. in his usual style. If you need a greater appreciation for what black soldiers went through in the war I can't think of a better book.
They Met at Gettysburg - Edward J. Stackpole - Maybe because I'm more knowledgable about Gettysburg than Antietam but I found this a bit disappointing. Stackpole was very biased and very general in his conclusions - he's definitely of the "Lee was let down by his subordinates" school of thought - and his description of the battle ranges from excellent to poor. For instance, in discussing July 2nd he spend 20+ pages on the action on the Union left but four paragraphs on Culp's and Cemetery Hill.
"That's what the elves call Justice of the Unicorn!"
The leaving out of the battles on the evening of July 2nd in most histories has always bothered me, particularly because I had ancestors who fought there as part of Hays' LA Tigers.
shareTry Harry W. Pfanz's Gettysburg: Cemetery & Culp's Hill
http://www.amazon.com/Gettysburg--Culps-Hill-Cemetery-Harry-Pfanz/dp/0 807849960/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311630613&sr=1-1
Its been awhile since I read it, but it was pretty good. Had a lot about Ewell's night attack on Cemetery Hill.
Time Jesum transeumtum et non riverentum
Reading Catton's "Stillness at Appomattox" right now and despite being an older book, I find it not only better than a lot of modern historical works but more informative, too. It is a book with limited scope, though, focusing just on the Army of Potomac, which allows him to delve deep into the soldiers and attitudes of everyone involved. This is the first history of his I've read (other than his autobiography which was boring as all get out) and he's fantastic. I need to grab his other Civil War works.
shareAgreed. I recently got to purchase his entire Army of the Potomac trilogy from a thrift store for a total of $3! Really excellent, possibly the best works I've read on the Civil War.
"I had a big lunch that DIDN'T tempt fate!"
Yes, the Army of the Potomac trilogy is amazing. Catton was just a great writer and he really got what everything was about.
His work on Grant is excellent too.
Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.
[deleted]
Having just finished The Real Lincoln, I can now confidently say is Thomas DiLorenzo is the worst historian ever. Not just on the Civil War either.
"I guess this isn't the right economic climate for an expensive, poorly-trained visionary."