Civil War Books to Read
Extremel...@gmail.com
Larry Schweikart's "A Patriot's History of America" (the Civil War
sections), Bruce Catton's three part series, and General Grant's
memoir.
I assume many of you are more educated on the Civil War, and are
better read on its various subjects. What do you think of these books?
Will they contribute effectively to my understanding of the war? Will
they give me good insights into the essentials of what caused the war,
how the war was fought, and what the war caused?
Ray O'Hara
<Extremel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172175573.5...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
they are all very good foundation books. the allan nevins 'ordeal of the
union; series is very good and shelby foote is too, it is very readable.
soon you'll even be able to detect the leanings of the writer.
after that there are hundreds of biographies, books on battles, campaigns
and unit histories, books on spies,weapons and the railroad.. you can spend
20 years reading about the war and not exhaust libraries.
then of course you have to make trips to the battlefields. where you will
find even more books for sale in the visitor centers.
the civil war makes a great hobby because so much of the stuff still exists.
examples of weapons,ammo, uniforms and all the daily accoutrments are
available for viewing.
re-enactments are fun too and nobody is more willing to help than a
re-enactor. show them some interest and they'll never shut up.
Stephen Graham
I'm not familiar with Schweikart but the rest are a good start at the
Civil War.
Extremel...@gmail.com
I appreciate the help.
I'm also interested in a study of the relationship between the
philosophy (the ideology) of the time, and how it motivated the start
of the war and the actions of the generals in the war. I've studied a
bit, and writers usually have used the terminology of Whig, Know-
Nothing, Republican, Democrat, etc. These party names don't tell me
much about the uniting and fundamental ideology of each side, and how
these ideologies lead men to take cerain actions. Sometimes the
constant switching of parties and party titles and party ideology is
just plain confusing. Is their a book particularly devoted to
explaining these things, or at least good at illucidating this aspect
of the war?
dro...@gmail.com
These books are literary syntheses of the underlying material and are
painstakingly constructed to appeal to the broadest possible (non-ACW)
audiences. It is very difficult, once you have a begun reading deeply,
to go back to these titles because of their superficiality.
You are asking - in your second post - a question which these books
are not equipped to address except on a quick-n-dirty labeling basis.
Why not start with The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party, a
great introduction to the parties leading up to the ACW with plenty of
background on the pre-ACW activities of major personalities of the
war. Then, when you go to a McPherson or Catton, and they mention the
name of a political personality, you'll have the full dossier.
Catton and McPherson are particularly awful in tracking the pre-war
political activities and alignments of the principle generals of the
war. They'll do a little labeling of Grant (D), McClellan (D),
McClernand (D), leaving you high and dry on details and on other
affiliations and connections. Some books will even mislabel the few
generals they identify politically (I've seen Banks, first Republican
speaker of the House, called a Democrat).
You'll have no idea that the abolitionist general McDowell was Ohio
Governor Dennison's first cousin and ex-Ohio Gov. Salmon Chase's
frequent house guest; you won't know that Hooker was instrumental in
getting Lincoln's dear friend Colonel Baker elected to the Senate; nor
that Winfield Scott, the last major Whig Party candidate, was a
protege of Seward and a creature of the Weed machine. You won't know
that McClellan married into the declining "Albany Regency," nor will
you be granted the insight that Stanton invented the "insanity
defense" to defend Gen. Sickles pre-war from a murder rap. Nor are
these authors likely to tell you that during the Buchanan
Administration, Atty Gen Stanton met regularly and secretley with
Seward to pass on inside cabinet information to this leader of the
opposition; likewise, when he joined the Lincoln Administration as a
lawyer under Simon Cameron, he kept up a correspondence with ex-
President Buchanan reporting on Lincoln's doings.
Unless you immerse yourself in the political material, you are going
to view the Civil war as a simple military conflict marked my
meritocratic rising and falling with the political hermetically sealed
from the military.
To quote Thomas Goss:
[Considering the] "background and appointment of famous West Pointers
like Halleck, George McClellan, Ambrose Burnside, and William T.
Sherman to general officer rank will reveal the convoluted political
and military calculations that dicated their promotion." (p 52)
"... who was actually selected had a lot more to do with old-fashioned
political patronage than with any systematic consideration of level of
experience or of command aptitude." (53)
Good luck,
Dimitri
http://cwbn.blogspot.com
Extremel...@gmail.com
Besides, it wouldn't help me to look in Webster for a correct spelling
of illucidate, since it's spelled elucidate. Illuminate,
elucidate...get it? I guess my typos prove that you're very educated,
intelligent, and aware.
I don't like being called Socrates, by the way. I'm more like
Aristotle.
On Feb 23, 1:21 pm, Bad Jim <j...@csa.gov> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:32:30 -0500, ExtremelyAmeri...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article <1172251950.587302.241...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):
>
> [snip]
>
> > Is their a book particularly devoted to explaining these things, or at
> > least good at illucidating this aspect of the war?
>
> I'm afraid I can't help you with that one, Socrates, but you might check out
> a copy of Webster's to "illucidate" some of them their spellings.
>
> --
> Bad Jim
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Extremel...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for the insights, Dimitri. You are correct about the books I
named not being equipped to intensively deal with the political and
sociological aspects of the war. Many times the names of politicians
are basically listed, with only simple references to their
constituents and impacts. This doesn't help much in understanding the
country at the time, or the motivations and subsequent directions
taken.
I have read several hundred pages in McPherson's Battle Cry of
Freedom, and I see what you are talking about in regards to how he
deals with the politics. Every page is filled with various statistics
which are related to individual politicians, then suddenly to the
whole party, then back to an individual, then to the whole country. It
works in presenting a chronological development of some of the
political issues, but it doesn't effectively explain how these
political issues lead to war.
I will look into "The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party." This
seems like what I need to get a better grasp of the bigger picture.
Thank you for the suggestion.
Extremel...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:13:30 -0500, ExtremelyAmeri...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article <1172261610.627444.156...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>):
> grammar show an internal lack of discipline and precision, especially when
> most programs have built in spell checkers. Not characteristics one
> associates with Aristotle. Nor would Aristotle top-post. We philosophers
> should use words with precision, n'est-ce pas?
>
> --
> Bad Jim
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The comparison between elucidate and illuminate was to point out how I
made the mistake: I accidentally combined them. I make mistakes when
writing at 100+ wpm. When I write a simple message on a Civil War
message board, I'm not particularly concerned with correcting any and
all mistakes. I'm here to get information, not to write emaculate
essays for stuffy old men like yourself.
Your comment about me using neologism as a defense is idiotic. Where
are you getting this? At what point did I state that I was
purposefully combining the words? I stated explicitly that it was a
typo. We philosopher's should READ with precision, shouldn't we?
Take another look, brother. I even added some emphasis for you, since
your reading comprehension skills are a little less impressive than
your grammar skills.
>>I guess my >>>>>typos<<<<< prove that you're very educated,
>> intelligent, and aware.
Hmm... seems that the implications of my sarcasm proved accurate. Your
focus is on one word I mistyped, instead of on the substance or
purpose of what I wrote. Why? Can you only focus on the non-essential?
This seems odd, since the whole purpose of being a philosopher is to
define what IS essential.
Stephen Graham
> I'm also interested in a study of the relationship between the
> philosophy (the ideology) of the time, and how it motivated the start
> of the war and the actions of the generals in the war. I've studied a
> bit, and writers usually have used the terminology of Whig, Know-
> Nothing, Republican, Democrat, etc. These party names don't tell me
> much about the uniting and fundamental ideology of each side, and how
> these ideologies lead men to take cerain actions. Sometimes the
> constant switching of parties and party titles and party ideology is
> just plain confusing. Is their a book particularly devoted to
> explaining these things, or at least good at illucidating this aspect
> of the war?
Dmitri's given you one suggestion.
Another would be William Freehling's Road to Disunion, which focuses
more on the South but may well cover everything you wish to know in some
detail. Volume One is available in paperback; Volume Two is being
published April 1st.
Ray O'Hara
"Bad Jim" <jc...@csa.gov> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C204D484...@free.teranews.com...
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:19:36 -0500, Extremel...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article <1172265576.0...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > I'm here to get information, not to write emaculate essays
>
>
> > We philosopher's should READ with precision, shouldn't we?
>
here?
> Is it some subtlety such as
> being-for-itself-but-not-of-itself-nevertheless-possessing-itself?
>
> > Take another look, brother. I even added some emphasis for you, since
> > your reading comprehension skills are a little less impressive than
> > your grammar skills.
>
>
> > Hmm... seems that the implications of my sarcasm proved accurate. Your
> > focus is on one word I mistyped, instead of on the substance or purpose
of
> > what I wrote.
>
>
> > Why? Can you only focus on the non-essential? This seems odd, since the
> > whole purpose of being a philosopher is to define what IS essential.
>
>
>
> --
> Bad Jim
>
no comment on emaculate?
scott s.
news:1172262633.6...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:
>
> I will look into "The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party." This
> seems like what I need to get a better grasp of the bigger picture.
> Thank you for the suggestion.
>
It's kind of slow going, but I think it is worth the effort. One of
Holt's goals is to show that all politics really is local. The main
problem for an ACW reader is that things sort of trail off after 1856.
A hole which I think exists (or at least I haven't found a really
good filler for it) is the rise of "unionism" as a party alternative
to "republicanism". some of that can be seen from Daniel Crofts'
"Reluctant Confederates" which is by a historian but reads more
like a political science text with its emphasis on analyzing
election returns.
I'm not sure how William Davis' bio of Jeff Davis is holding up
today, but there is plenty in it about the political events
surrounding Davis.
Haven't read all these, but I think they tend to be cited:
Freehling "Road to Disunion"
Nevins "Ordeal of the Union"
Foner "Free soil, Free Labor, Free Men" though Foner is
such an outspoken lefty I'm not sure about his objectivity.
Something else you might consider, which isn't really
political but I think also worth looking at in addition
to the typical campaign/battle narratives are the books
by Ira Berlin on the slave experience. there's a lot
of stuff out there and I can't give you definitive title
of his unfortunately.
scott s.
.
Hugh Lawson
> Extremel...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:1172262633.6...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> I will look into "The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party." This
>> seems like what I need to get a better grasp of the bigger picture.
>> Thank you for the suggestion.
>>
>
> It's kind of slow going, but I think it is worth the effort. One of
> Holt's goals is to show that all politics really is local.
I like David Potter, The Impending Crisis. It starts in the 1840s and
takes the story to the outbreak of war.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Extremel...@gmail.com
On Feb 23, 4:59 pm, Bad Jim <j...@csa.gov> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:35:31 -0500, Ray O'Hara wrote
> (in article <ZO-dndwXeeuv8ULYnZ2dnUVZ_t-mn...@comcast.com>):
>
> > no comment on emaculate?
>
> It's a verb. I told him to try an adjective ;-)
>
> Is you one o dem fill-o-soffers too? Maybe we should rename this group the
> Civil War Philosophical and Afternoon Tea Sippin' Society :-)
Jim, what philosophy do you believe in exactly?
Ray O'Hara
<Extremel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172510402.3...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
look at jim's e-mail addy and guess
Extremel...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:20:02 -0500, ExtremelyAmeri...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article <1172510402.345015.142...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>):
> Belief implies the absence of wisdom.
>
> --
> Bad Jim
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, belief can imply faith, which means belief in something of which
one has no knowledge. In this context I meant: What philosopher do you
agree with most? or: What is your philosophy?
Philosophy means the love of wisdom, if we're having a discussion of
etymology. But we're not. I am asking you what is your philosophy,
which means: What is your fundamental view of existence and of man?
Extremel...@gmail.com
Ray O'Hara
<Extremel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172513287.4...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> Ray, I don't see what you're alluding to.
>