Shelby Foote's Civil War Trilogy...Any Good?
- Thread starter mawnansmiff
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
"Nothing to worry about. Right now, you're even with the vast majority of Americans. By the time you're completed your traversal of the Civil War, you'll know more about it than 90% of the American public."
I'm sure much of this was said tongue in cheek Jesse. As your country is effectively so young compared to Great Britain, the history packages you had thrust down your throats as schoolchildren would have been much broader than we got as so much had to be packed in. The Romans and the Industrial Revolution were my favourite subjects then.
I recall one history Master, a Mr. Stittle had an obsession with his students making drawings to append to any essays he gave us to write. I often got bad marks, not for my essays but for the little stick men I used to draw to help 'illustrate' any particular point. I was interested in history not bloody art!
Another history Master, a Mr. Pardoe actually saw I was serious about the subject and took me out with a group of other enthusiasts on the occasional weekend trip to various Roman sites in and around the district. That was fantastic.
Not wanting to start a ruckus, I'm astonished that Darwin's theory of evolution is still barred by some States in America. I saw an interview recently where an otherwise well respected High School science teacher was absolutely convinced the 'world' was no older than about 6,000 years....and he was teaching your kids that....bloody amazing!
Ah well....time for bed so I'll wish you all goodnight :
:
Regards,
Jay.
I'm sure much of this was said tongue in cheek Jesse. As your country is effectively so young compared to Great Britain, the history packages you had thrust down your throats as schoolchildren would have been much broader than we got as so much had to be packed in. The Romans and the Industrial Revolution were my favourite subjects then.
I recall one history Master, a Mr. Stittle had an obsession with his students making drawings to append to any essays he gave us to write. I often got bad marks, not for my essays but for the little stick men I used to draw to help 'illustrate' any particular point. I was interested in history not bloody art!
Another history Master, a Mr. Pardoe actually saw I was serious about the subject and took me out with a group of other enthusiasts on the occasional weekend trip to various Roman sites in and around the district. That was fantastic.
Not wanting to start a ruckus, I'm astonished that Darwin's theory of evolution is still barred by some States in America. I saw an interview recently where an otherwise well respected High School science teacher was absolutely convinced the 'world' was no older than about 6,000 years....and he was teaching your kids that....bloody amazing!
Ah well....time for bed so I'll wish you all goodnight :
:Regards,
Jay.
Northwestern University, for example, is located in Illinois. At that time, Illinois pretty much was the Northwest.
A great many of the books on history in my collection actually make mention of how much Americans in general seem to go out of their way to maintain a profound ignorance of history. Many explanations are attempted, and they're all sad, IMO.
A great many of the books on history in my collection actually make mention of how much Americans in general seem to go out of their way to maintain a profound ignorance of history. Many explanations are attempted, and they're all sad, IMO.
"A great many of the books on history in my collection actually make mention of how much Americans in general seem to go out of their way to maintain a profound ignorance of history."
Aldecaker, in your opinion why would this be as it doesn't make sense? I always had the impression that Americans were hugely proud of their (granted, short) history.
I believe there are many active re-enactment societies across the States covering all aspects of American history, the Civil War being most popular.
As they say, 'you need to know where you came from before you will know where you're going'.
Regards,
Jay.
PS: I'm glad you chimed in as I believe we have discussed these topics quite some while ago and you gave me the impression this was a particular interest of yours (the Civil War).
Aldecaker, in your opinion why would this be as it doesn't make sense? I always had the impression that Americans were hugely proud of their (granted, short) history.
I believe there are many active re-enactment societies across the States covering all aspects of American history, the Civil War being most popular.
As they say, 'you need to know where you came from before you will know where you're going'.
Regards,
Jay.
PS: I'm glad you chimed in as I believe we have discussed these topics quite some while ago and you gave me the impression this was a particular interest of yours (the Civil War).
You know, Jay, being a history fan myself, I could never understand why anyone wouldn't be fascinated by it. The most common explanation I have heard, though I don't know how plausible it really is, is that Americans always see themselves as looking to the future, innovating, pioneering, all that sort of thing. No time for the past, as it were.
A great many Americans are very proud of their history, but for better or for worse, the history they are proud of tends to be quite fictionalized (which is why I have such an appreciation for books like "Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of American History").
There are two distinct camps when it comes to the re-examination and de-fictionalization of American history. One comes to the conclusion that the United States is just horrible; nothing but a trail of malicious injustice through the years and a travesty to be ashamed of.
The other camp, which I find myself in, comes to the conclusion that a more honest, less sanitized view of our history makes it something that one can be just as proud of. Are there negative aspects that are uncomfortable to take an honest look at? Of course there are, aplenty. But one cannot refuse to take into account the context of those aspects and insist on judging them entirely by today's standards. One view can say we held slaves so our history is terrible; another view can say we ended slavery, so our history is wonderful (just to take one example). There are shades of fact in both views.
There are many reenactment societies and study groups focusing on history here. Compared to the general population, their numbers are few, but the passion of those few makes them seem like a larger phenomenon than they actually are, in my opinion. At any rate, I ramble on, as I tend to do on this subject!
A great many Americans are very proud of their history, but for better or for worse, the history they are proud of tends to be quite fictionalized (which is why I have such an appreciation for books like "Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of American History").
There are two distinct camps when it comes to the re-examination and de-fictionalization of American history. One comes to the conclusion that the United States is just horrible; nothing but a trail of malicious injustice through the years and a travesty to be ashamed of.
The other camp, which I find myself in, comes to the conclusion that a more honest, less sanitized view of our history makes it something that one can be just as proud of. Are there negative aspects that are uncomfortable to take an honest look at? Of course there are, aplenty. But one cannot refuse to take into account the context of those aspects and insist on judging them entirely by today's standards. One view can say we held slaves so our history is terrible; another view can say we ended slavery, so our history is wonderful (just to take one example). There are shades of fact in both views.
There are many reenactment societies and study groups focusing on history here. Compared to the general population, their numbers are few, but the passion of those few makes them seem like a larger phenomenon than they actually are, in my opinion. At any rate, I ramble on, as I tend to do on this subject!
I prefer the camp you omitted, the historians who write as objectively as possible, not trying to justify behavior, simply writing about events in their context. They are few and far between and very dry reading. Witch burnings, slavery, mass killings of enemies and their families, etc. are neither bad nor good, just the behavior of the times and the whys ... all in context.
The historians I avoid are those applying 21st Century mores to 18th, 10th or, ... you pick the time and behavior. To me, our history is neither terrible nor particularly praiseworthy. Our history is simply what it is, events over the passage of time. Nothing to be proud of nor, to despair of. In the case of slavery the US lagged behind Russia, England, France and a litany of western countries. Was that a good thing or a bad thing? To an historian it was neither, unless he/she adds the mental baggage that so many carry.
The historians I avoid are those applying 21st Century mores to 18th, 10th or, ... you pick the time and behavior. To me, our history is neither terrible nor particularly praiseworthy. Our history is simply what it is, events over the passage of time. Nothing to be proud of nor, to despair of. In the case of slavery the US lagged behind Russia, England, France and a litany of western countries. Was that a good thing or a bad thing? To an historian it was neither, unless he/she adds the mental baggage that so many carry.
Many, not simply Americans either, prefer to stick with lore as a true understanding would significantly reduce their pride in only dimly knows relatives. Regarding the American Civil War, many still refuse to acknowledge the impact slavery had as a cause. Many descendants cannot accept family defended slavery, this includes kin of Union and Confederate soldiers. They stick to the idea of defending against invasion or support of union and adamantly disavow any connection of "The War" to slavery. Too messy to consider.
I may be presumptuous in thinking then that you will agree that many "historians" are, in fact, merely apologists and not historians. Doris Kearns Goodwin jumps immediately to mind.
Written history is as Warren states, merely a record of past events put down on paper for those who are interested in knowing. Inevitably he or she who wields the pen is going to put his or her slant on things and this is to be expected as they are communicating packets of information as they see them. This is not necessarily a bad thing and is actually quite a natural behaviour.
It is for that reason I prefer to read several books on any given subject so as I can form my own opinion based upon what I have read, the above caveat always in mind.
What I don't like is a writer of history who has a particular agenda be it personal, political or whatever. Unfortunately some of these 'writers' slip through my personal filters but it's usually not long afore I twig that what I'm reading is more of a personal portrait with warts removed than a general landscape with all of life's detritus clearly in view.
Fortunately those who are able to tell a story with clarity, honesty and largely impartially are the ones who top the ratings on various book review sites though inevitably, the occasional Trojan horse slips through.
Regards,
Jay.
It is for that reason I prefer to read several books on any given subject so as I can form my own opinion based upon what I have read, the above caveat always in mind.
What I don't like is a writer of history who has a particular agenda be it personal, political or whatever. Unfortunately some of these 'writers' slip through my personal filters but it's usually not long afore I twig that what I'm reading is more of a personal portrait with warts removed than a general landscape with all of life's detritus clearly in view.
Fortunately those who are able to tell a story with clarity, honesty and largely impartially are the ones who top the ratings on various book review sites though inevitably, the occasional Trojan horse slips through.
Regards,
Jay.
Personally, I don't mind if someone has a decided view on their topic, provided that they're not trying to be sneaky about it.
I want to thank everyone for this thread. I remember watching The Civil War documentary many years ago, and I just watched it again thanks to this thread. I also started reading Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogy and I am hooked! What an excellent writer. Thank you, thank you, for turning me on to this! I was looking for something good to read after finishing up Bernard Cornwell's Richard Sharpe series, and cant quite get into Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series (though I have not given up on it).
It can be quite enlightening to read an author with known bias on a subject.
conlejm: There is history to be learned in both authors' series. Mostly how people lived and behaved as well as some great battle history.
I agree wholeheartedly.
conlejm: There is history to be learned in both authors' series. Mostly how people lived and behaved as well as some great battle history.
Conlejm, glad you were so inspired. This thread has put me in touch with many books to read and films to watch to keep me busy for quite some while. I might be somewhat poorer in pocket but will eventually be that much richer in mind which to me is money well spent.
Last night I watched 'Brooklyn Bridge' and 'Statue Of Liberty' from the Ken Burns' 7 disc 'America Collection' which made for great viewing, particularly the former.
It's funny how time distorts one's memory as I always thought Gustave Eiffel designed and built the Statue Of Liberty for the French people who didn't want it so it was offered to America. Well Eiffel was involved in the story but only as a minor player and the statue was offered to Egypt (who declined it) and not France but now all is straight in my mind.
Later today my binge viewing of 'Civil War' starts so am quite looking forward to that. Though I already watched disc 1, it was on my PC so will start afresh this time on my full size TV and surround sound.
Regards,
Jay.
Last night I watched 'Brooklyn Bridge' and 'Statue Of Liberty' from the Ken Burns' 7 disc 'America Collection' which made for great viewing, particularly the former.
It's funny how time distorts one's memory as I always thought Gustave Eiffel designed and built the Statue Of Liberty for the French people who didn't want it so it was offered to America. Well Eiffel was involved in the story but only as a minor player and the statue was offered to Egypt (who declined it) and not France but now all is straight in my mind.
Later today my binge viewing of 'Civil War' starts so am quite looking forward to that. Though I already watched disc 1, it was on my PC so will start afresh this time on my full size TV and surround sound.
Regards,
Jay.
I have a question: As most if not all heavy industry was based in the Union States, then how did the Confederate States manage to procure items such as small arms, artillery, ammunition etc necessary to make war with the North?
By all accounts the Confederate States had plenty of cotton and tobacco but little else. I should imagine much was purloined on the battlefield but only if that particular battle had gone their way. Was there some kind of 'underground' dealing going on with those sympathetic to the Southern cause?
Regards,
Julian.
By all accounts the Confederate States had plenty of cotton and tobacco but little else. I should imagine much was purloined on the battlefield but only if that particular battle had gone their way. Was there some kind of 'underground' dealing going on with those sympathetic to the Southern cause?
Regards,
Julian.
Besides seizing the Federal armories within the seceding States, the Confederacy set up major production in Richmond, Selma and Atlanta. Plus, farmers had guns and they brought their own weapons to the fight. Plus they bought armaments from Europe. England was a supporter. They wanted the US permanently weakened.
Urine was collected throughout the Confederacy. Union commanders with Southern leanings turned their posts and arms over to the southern state they were based in before denying their oath to go "South" as it were. Tredeger Iron works, Richmond, made much of the cannon used by the South and nearly all of the iron plate used on ships. There were many manufacturers of small arms, incapable of meeting demands, and thousands of Enfields were imported from England. The South never had enough and once "The Crown" realized public opinion was against slavery, the imports were reduced to a trickle, cotton was replaced with wool and the South lost purchasing power.
The Czar sailed his navy into the English Channel as a warning to both France and England not to recognize The Confederacy. England recognized Lincoln was willing to fight a two front war, south and Canada and that the US was probably capable of doing so. So by the second year of the war recognition from Europe was but a dream and, entirely out of the question by the third year. This in spite of Lee's hope that a victory in the North would speed such recognition.
As an aside: Cotton was heavily traded to the North during the war. All of it illegal of course but, good for a few in the south.
The problem Jefferson Davis couldn't overcome was that as a "confederacy", various southern governors refused to act in the best interests of the country. Governors withheld troops, controlled where such troops be assigned and fought. Lincoln on the other hand enjoyed nearly total support from the governors. "States Rights" the rallying cry for war with the Union was in fact the death sentence for the Confederacy. Lincoln had many problems, political mostly but, he never lost sight of the prize.
The South was destined to lose the War from the first secession. They were out-gunned, out-generaled" (contrary to what you might read), out-spent, out-maneuvered politically with respect to foreign relations, out-produced, out-railroaded (many gauges and no real network), etc. All the South (the plantation owners really) really had was an overabundance of misplaced trust in their ability to wage war and a willingness to spill the blood of their sons. That the Union was also willing to do the same, came as a surprise to many of the Southern politicians and monied plantation owners. A huge surprise!.
Trivia: It's been written, mostly in paens to Lee written to rehabilitate, that he despaired of winning from the start.
The Czar sailed his navy into the English Channel as a warning to both France and England not to recognize The Confederacy. England recognized Lincoln was willing to fight a two front war, south and Canada and that the US was probably capable of doing so. So by the second year of the war recognition from Europe was but a dream and, entirely out of the question by the third year. This in spite of Lee's hope that a victory in the North would speed such recognition.
As an aside: Cotton was heavily traded to the North during the war. All of it illegal of course but, good for a few in the south.
The problem Jefferson Davis couldn't overcome was that as a "confederacy", various southern governors refused to act in the best interests of the country. Governors withheld troops, controlled where such troops be assigned and fought. Lincoln on the other hand enjoyed nearly total support from the governors. "States Rights" the rallying cry for war with the Union was in fact the death sentence for the Confederacy. Lincoln had many problems, political mostly but, he never lost sight of the prize.
The South was destined to lose the War from the first secession. They were out-gunned, out-generaled" (contrary to what you might read), out-spent, out-maneuvered politically with respect to foreign relations, out-produced, out-railroaded (many gauges and no real network), etc. All the South (the plantation owners really) really had was an overabundance of misplaced trust in their ability to wage war and a willingness to spill the blood of their sons. That the Union was also willing to do the same, came as a surprise to many of the Southern politicians and monied plantation owners. A huge surprise!.
Trivia: It's been written, mostly in paens to Lee written to rehabilitate, that he despaired of winning from the start.
"England was a supporter. They wanted the US permanently weakened."
Jesse, whilst I understand Britain might have wanted to seek some kind of revenge for 'losing' America to the Americans, I thought being abolishionist themselves they would have sided with the North if anyone.
So much to learn......
Warren, your post will be enjoyed later as I'm in the middle of watching the news :?
Regards,
Jay.
Jesse, whilst I understand Britain might have wanted to seek some kind of revenge for 'losing' America to the Americans, I thought being abolishionist themselves they would have sided with the North if anyone.
So much to learn......
Warren, your post will be enjoyed later as I'm in the middle of watching the news :?
Regards,
Jay.
Good lord, Warren, leave the poor guy a reason to read! There was some statement attributed to Lee, perhaps this one made to Preston Blair, when Lee was offered command of the Union Forces:
"Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South, I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native State?"
Lee saw himself less as an American than as a Virginian, first, last, and always.
Here's another well known quote, written to his daughter in January of 1861:
I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for 'perpetual Union,' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession: anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution. … Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none.
"Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South, I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native State?"
Lee saw himself less as an American than as a Virginian, first, last, and always.
Here's another well known quote, written to his daughter in January of 1861:
I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for 'perpetual Union,' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession: anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution. … Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none.
It was a matter of making money. They could do a profitable trade with the South for cotton. And, a divided US would pose no threat to any further colonial expansionism. But anti-slavery sentiment within England, along with a growing realization that the South lacked the resources to win, even with help, caused England to withdraw its aid to the South.
- Status