Confused and Concerned

[MajGenl.Meade]

On the premise that nobody is 100% correct and that any number of persons above one will invariably make different errors, I read 'em all. Errors of fact are usually easy to shake out. Contention arises (IMO) over matters of opinion and obscure matters where reasonable explanations may differ.

I tried to fact-check Harry Pfanz once.... just that once... I gave up on page 13

 

[CW3O]

Even the most subtle forms of censorship in what we read must be avoided, read what interests you.
Having said that, just because we read it doesn't make it historically or factually correct. Open debate is the opposite of censorship, any deficiencies, real or imaginary, in published works about the Civil War will be exposed here, that is the beauty of the conversation on these pages.

 

[brass napoleon]

".....if we can go directly to the primary source we remove all biases of the historian from the equation. Of course that's not to say that the primary source doesn't have its own bias, but at least that bias is part of the time period we're studying, and not noise that's been introduced in some later time period." Brass Napoleon, while I generally concur with this, we should also be cognizant that those primary sources are most often produced for public consumption, after reflection and with considerable "On second thought." A prime example of this is consulting primary sources for the cause of the War of 1812. Read Madison's call for war and one would think it was all about protecting American seamen from being impressed into the Royal Navy. Yeah, it was not grabbing Canada while the Brits were fighting Napoleon and hopefully destroying the hated Federalist Party.

Agreed. And that's exactly what I meant by saying that their bias is part of the time period we're studying. Even if we don't take the speaker or writer at face value, we can usually assume that the words were said or written to appeal to an audience of the time period, and this gives us insight into their frame of mind. And of course there are also primary source documents that weren't written for public consumption, like private letters, that can really give us a lot of insight into what the actual movers and shakers were thinking as well.

 

[FarawayFriend]

But to help @War Horse and others (like me) who are unsure on which books they should spend their time, I would like to see something like a"Book of the Month" thread, where someone presents one of his/her books and others comment on it. Thinking about that, wasn't there a "Book of the Month" thread once?? Will have to look that up! Maybe we can revive that...

 

[brass napoleon]

But to help @War Horse and others (like me) who are unsure on which books they should spend their time, I would like to see something like a"Book of the Month" thread, where someone presents one of his/her books and others comment on it. Thinking about that, wasn't there a "Book of the Month" thread once?? Will have to look that up! Maybe we can revive that...

I think we did. But even if we had such a thread, I think you might be better off just using the search function in the Book and Movie Review forum to see if anyone has reviewed a book about a topic you're interested in at the time. I've done that and have found some really excellent discussions that may have been a couple of years old. And of course if you don't find anything, feel free to start a thread and ask. You will quickly get all the responses you want (and perhaps more!)

 

[dvrmte]

This sort of attitude or action of forcing today's overly PC values on history is a shame in my opinion. It seems as if some people today feel that someone has to pay to todays standards for acts committed over 150 years ago. Even though not one of those people still live. It reminds me of people who watch animals clean themselves and find it completely repulsive. "That dogs licking his own hind end".. Sure he is, hes a dog! Attaching human values to animal characteristics is much the same as trying to attach modern PC'ness to history. It was a different time and dogs aren't people! One of my friends from the service grew up here in NC and moved to Missouri (Nixa) and came back here completely ashamed of his own Southern heritage. He had two GG Grandfathers in the Confederate army. Both were captured at one point. One in late 64, the other in late 61 and soon paroled. He was going on and on about his Grandfather who "fought off a much larger force at Fort Wagner". I actually felt bad to remind him of exactly who those Confederates were slaughtering there. He was in utter shock and dismay, as was I that he'd never seen the movie Glory.. Anyway, enough of my rambling. I hope I made my point clear and didn't get too off topic with the dog thing.

Make your friends head spin, tell him about the free black John Wilson Buckner that was wounded while manning the SC artillery against the 54th Mass. at Fort Wagner.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Thank you Cash but no it's Foote that came to mind. I loved his stories and hate that quoting him is so disrespected here. I don't even want to look back at the number of pages. I actually recognize your criticisms of Korda the more I read.

Foote's a great story-teller (and I see from the thread that I'm not alone in thinking that), and his words stay with you. That's the mark of a great author. His conscious decision to eschew footnotes does drive those of us who are a bit more particular (myself among them) up a wall, but he wasn't writing an academic treatise. I think he's like a great signpost, pointing out what might be interesting to delve further into; but he's not the last word on the topic himself.

I do have a list of "approved" authors in a sense; the naval bibliography I compiled includes smilies for books I consider particularly good or valuable. (On the down-side, of course, it's oriented towards a specific facet of the war...)

 

[Mr. King]

If you want to read good material, start by reading first-hand accounts. That's where all the authors get it, and it's in a raw form, at least as raw as it can be. It is only shaped by their feelings, which is something no one here has the clout to discredit. You can disagree with Foote or Gallagher. You can say that McPherson is biased. BUT... I challenge you to read the memoirs of a veteran line soldier from Hood's brigade and tell me he is wrong. As long as there is no self promotion, then I tend to take it to heart.
Even while reading Longstreet's accounts, which I find fault with, I still find it believable. It's not so much that what Longstreet is saying is 100% fact.... It's that he was putting hos version of events down on paper, and right or wrong, that's how he remembers it. It's not Michael Shaara's twist on it. It's the LTG himself. The only way to say he is wrong is to dig out a counter argument from E. P. Alexander or Jubal Early.
Take them with a grain of salt, understanding the tone of the day and the post war political strife, but also understand that if you could sit down in a corner booth of a bar with Jubal Early and have a beer, this is the story he'd tell you.

 

[M.Warren]

If you want to read good material, start by reading first-hand accounts. That's where all the authors get it, and it's in a raw form, at least as raw as it can be. It is only shaped by their feelings, which is something no one here has the clout to discredit. You can disagree with Foote or Gallagher. You can say that McPherson is biased. BUT... I challenge you to read the memoirs of a veteran line soldier from Hood's brigade and tell me he is wrong. As long as there is no self promotion, then I tend to take it to heart.
Even while reading Longstreet's accounts, which I find fault with, I still find it believable. It's not so much that what Longstreet is saying is 100% fact.... It's that he was putting hos version of events down on paper, and right or wrong, that's how he remembers it. It's not Michael Shaara's twist on it. It's the LTG himself. The only way to say he is wrong is to dig out a counter argument from E. P. Alexander or Jubal Early.
Take them with a grain of salt, understanding the tone of the day and the post war political strife, but also understand that if you could sit down in a corner booth of a bar with Jubal Early and have a beer, this is the story he'd tell you.

Very true! I've found the more personal accounts per event the more you actually start to see the truth. I really noticed that when reading on Fort Donelson using first hand accounts. Compared to the "history books" it was like night and day. It definitely changed my feelings on the happenings along the Mississippi. We (the South) really dropped the ball in the Western theater and I have no doubt that was the straw that broke the camels back, if you will.

 

[ForeverFree]

Since I have joined this forum I have endeavored to read and contribute to the forums. I have for the most part tremendously enjoyed my experiences and am in no way stating dissatisfaction with the site. I just would like someone to post a list of approved authors. I get dejected when I learn that I have been reading an author that is discredited as far as our membership feel. This is directed at no one in particular but suggested as a guide. Our members are the most knowledgeable on the subject and books are so time consuming only to find that our members do not respect the authors perspective. Please don't take this as negative I just would like to discuss this.

Just some thoughts:

- I tend to buy books from university presses. These books have at least gone through some type of quality control. That doesn't mean the books are 100% correct as to facts or opinion, but the peer review the books get is superior to mere copy editing. Plus these books provide citations for their sources; some books provide few or even no citations.

Of course, many books on military history are done outside the university press. Don't ignore those books just because they are not university press. But for detailed social, political, or economic history, I am biased to books from academic presses.

- In the past couple of years I've taken a fancy to so-called "documentary readers." These are books that contain primary or source records from the era. These usually contain annotations which provide some information or context for the original text. It's great to hear stuff from straight from the horse's mouth. Many of the readers provide a diverse set of references, which I like a lot.

For folks who have the time and patience and resources to do so, I recommend The Library of America's four part "The Civil War" series. I've been able to get a couple of the books at a nice discount from my local bookstore, and Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble.com sell them at a discount from full price. In addition to the source records, the books contain biographical sketches of the folks whose docs are mentioned, and also, a chronology of events.

Between these readers and what's on the Internet, one can make his or her opinion on things.

- Don't discount the value of book reviews. Due to my tight budget, I now seek out reviews of the books I want to buy. You can find out if a book is controversial and why, or if an author is controversial, and why.

- Alan

 

[Mr. King]

Very true! I've found the more personal accounts per event the more you actually start to see the truth. I really noticed that when reading on Fort Donelson using first hand accounts. Compared to the "history books" it was like night and day. It definitely changed my feelings on the happenings along the Mississippi. We (the South) really dropped the ball in the Western theater and I have no doubt that was the straw that broke the camels back, if you will.

A lot of these post-war accounts, at least the ones who got published, like E.P. Alexander and J.B. Gordon, they are open to the public via google books. I spend a good amount of time reading

 

[FarawayFriend]

A lot of these post-war accounts, at least the ones who got published, like E.P. Alexander and J.B. Gordon, they are open to the public via google books. I spend a good amount of time reading

Not to forget Moxley Sorrel's (from Longstreet's staff) account. They can even be downloaded for free in various formats for Kindle and other readers from www.archive.org. There is nearly everything there, although if converted to Kindle format, there will be some flaws in the text, but mostly tolerable.
Since I know that site, I feel like a kid in a candy store! So much to read, so little time!

 

[E_just_E]

Every publisher is going to publicize good reviews. I'd go with the reviews of experts in the field.

"Expert" is a dangerous word, when is stand alone. For example, who would be more "expert" on the reasons of the Secession and the Civil War from a Confederate perspective that Jefferson Davis?

Expert is great, but Lack of an Agenda/Objectivity and Lack of Conflict of Interest are equally important. The last two would really disqualify Davis' expert opinion, or, rather, introduce a huge saltlick next to it. Same as later "experts' " with particular agendas regardless of side.

 

[E_just_E]

Oh, Foote is ok! It's just good to keep in mind he was writing the story of the CW from the Southern viewpoint. He always said he wasn't an historian. I've seen him quoted by people who are historians and that's pretty good. It's a good idea, too, to have a little backup if anybody wants to know where whatever it was came from. Bruce Catton wasn't an historian, either. His Stillness at Appomattox is almost prose poetry.

Agreed. Catton and Foote introduced many many people to Civil War. Not everyone is open to pick up a Military History or a Biography book and start reading. Many more became such, after reading Catton and/or Foote.

 

[Mr. King]

The

Not to forget Moxley Sorrel's (from Longstreet's staff) account. They can even be downloaded for free in various formats for Kindle and other readers from www.archive.org. There is nearly everything there, although if converted to Kindle format, there will be some flaws in the text, but mostly tolerable.
Since I know that site, I feel like a kid in a candy store! So much to read, so little time!

The saddest part, I find, is that so many men died before they told their story their way, and it has been left to others to tell it for them.
How much would we pay to read "Stonewall Jackson: My Time in the Valley". Frankly, even if he had lived, he never would have written about his service. The best we would get would be interviews.
Even Lee never got a chance to put it in his own words in a tell-all book. I do like to read his personal letters, though.

Lincoln would have written a great version of the war. That would be a fascinating book. Insight into his management of the craziest 4 years of our history would be a treasure trove. It could also have revealed a Lincoln we have no clue about.

Look at Longstreet. If he had kept his trap shut, history would have judged him in a better light, for sure. As it stands, he is the "Dixie Chicks" of the Confederacy.

 

[FarawayFriend]

The

The saddest part, I find, is that so many men died before they told their story their way, and it has been left to others to tell it for them.
How much would we pay to read "Stonewall Jackson: My Time in the Valley". Frankly, even if he had lived, he never would have written about his service. The best we would get would be interviews.
Even Lee never got a chance to put it in his own words in a tell-all book. I do like to read his personal letters, though.

Lincoln would have written a great version of the war. That would be a fascinating book. Insight into his management of the craziest 4 years of our history would be a treasure trove. It could also have revealed a Lincoln we have no clue about.

Look at Longstreet. If he had kept his trap shut, history would have judged him in a better light, for sure. As it stands, he is the "Dixie Chicks" of the Confederacy.

Lee's "Recollections and letters" for Kindle were once a free download on Amazon, meanwhile they cost a small fee (at least here in Germany). As for Jackson, I don't know. I saw "Gods and Generals" once more on TV last night and now I have had my full share of pious remarks ...(alright, alright, it's only a movie and far from any historical correctness. I know, I know!!)Probably "I rode with Stonewall" by Henry Kyd Douglas is a very good substitute, though. Although I still have not read it. But it is on my list.

 

[Mr. King]

Foote's a great story-teller (and I see from the thread that I'm not alone in thinking that), and his words stay with you. That's the mark of a great author. His conscious decision to eschew footnotes does drive those of us who are a bit more particular (myself among them) up a wall, but he wasn't writing an academic treatise. I think he's like a great signpost, pointing out what might be interesting to delve further into; but he's not the last word on the topic himself.

I do have a list of "approved" authors in a sense; the naval bibliography I compiled includes smilies for books I consider particularly good or valuable. (On the down-side, of course, it's oriented towards a specific facet of the war...)

I love Shelby Foote. He died long before I moved to Memphis, but a friend of my actually went to the estate sale at his house. He couldn't afford to buy anything, but he said the smell of pipe smoke in the house was so strong, that you could almost hear his voice.

I swear, I could listen to Shelby Foote talk about 17th Century French Literature, and I'd be unable to walk away. His delivery was perfect. His depression era Greenville, MS accent was like a lullaby.

My Grandfather had a depression era Montgomery, AL accent, and but for one 70 yr old cousin I have, it died with him. It was a peculiar way of speaking, and though I picked up a lot of it over the years, I must admit that when I borrow a pronunciation from him, my wife can point it out every time. It just doesn't fit my mouth well, I guess.

 

[KansasFreestater]

I think Foote's trilogy is one of the true greats in terms of Civil War scholarship, and I frequently recommend it to newbies who are interested in studying the Civil War. I really think there's no better way to wrap your head around the whole thing, and in an entertaining way.

That said, there is one major problem with citing Foote - as @MaryDee noted above, the lack of his own citations in terms of footnotes and endnotes. Even the most brilliant, respected historian should not expect us to just take his or her word for everything they write. We need to see where they got the information from. If we can't see that, or if the citations are sloppy or just plain wrong, then it really has no value in an argument or a debate. But that doesn't mean it might not still have tremendous value outside of arguments or debates.

For me, the best authors are those who correctly cite lots of primary sources to support their claims. It's the primary sources that I really find fascinating and often full of all kinds of useful information that the historian doesn't have time or room to include in their work. Furthermore, if we can go directly to the primary source we remove all biases of the historian from the equation. Of course that's not to say that the primary source doesn't have its own bias, but at least that bias is part of the time period we're studying, and not noise that's been introduced in some later time period.

Even with this approach, however, we'll never know everything. There are thousands upon thousands of primary sources -- letters, diaries, military reports, newspaper articles, family records, on and on and on, it's boggling. No one can make it through all those sources. So historians devise methodologies for sampling the sources. Example: Chandra Manning's book What This Cruel War Was Over uses nothing but primary sources -- to make points which I rarely see anyone else making. Was she cherry-picking, out of all those thousands of sources, the ones that would help her make her points? Well, in her appendices at the end of the book, she tells you exactly what her methodology was, so you can judge for yourself. Not being a professional historian, I can't say for sure. It looks valid to me -- but then, I've read other historians whose methodologies also look impressive, who reach different conclusions. I hate to get all metaphysical, but maybe they're all "right." Frankly, I think one reason this war is endlessly fascinating to us is that it was so complex, so multifaceted, that we're just never going to fathom it all in its every dimension.

 

[War Horse]

Even with this approach, however, we'll never know everything. There are thousands upon thousands of primary sources -- letters, diaries, military reports, newspaper articles, family records, on and on and on, it's boggling. No one can make it through all those sources. So historians devise methodologies for sampling the sources. Example: Chandra Manning's book What This Cruel War Was Over uses nothing but primary sources -- to make points which I rarely see anyone else making. Was she cherry-picking, out of all those thousands of sources, the ones that would help her make her points? Well, in her appendices at the end of the book, she tells you exactly what her methodology was, so you can judge for yourself. Not being a professional historian, I can't say for sure. It looks valid to me -- but then, I've read other historians whose methodologies also look impressive, who reach different conclusions. I hate to get all metaphysical, but maybe they're all "right." Frankly, I think one reason this war is endlessly fascinating to us is that it was so complex, so multifaceted, that we're just never going to fathom it all in its every dimension.

Very well said!

 

[cash]

"Expert" is a dangerous word, when is stand alone. For example, who would be more "expert" on the reasons of the Secession and the Civil War from a Confederate perspective that Jefferson Davis?

Jefferson Davis in 1861 instead of Jefferson Davis postwar.

Expert is great, but Lack of an Agenda/Objectivity and Lack of Conflict of Interest are equally important. The last two would really disqualify Davis' expert opinion, or, rather, introduce a huge saltlick next to it. Same as later "experts' " with particular agendas regardless of side.

It's fairly easy to determine on whom we can rely regarding reviews.