Bartow93
Cadet
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2020
Good Afternoon All,
Recently, I used Audible to "read" this work, and was AMAZED that there is not yet a thread on it nor is there a large awareness of it. McPherson goes into a detailed, statistically backed, primary-source study of the WBTS from perspective of both North an South. He foregoes modernism and modern political ideologies, editorializing only when reflecting on his research process or clarifying the circumstances of the respective Soldier, Sailor, or Marines' writing (for example, after a battle).
McPherson establishes the causes of the men as told in their own words in a methodical way that transcends class, economic status, rank, or branch of service. He addresses the issue of Slavery as a cause particularly well, and objectively, offering quite a bit of beneficial- albeit, politically incorrect- information. His work does not pander to the anti-lost cause foolishness, no does it support the moral high ground both sides feel entitled to. Hs work is beyond invaluable to the objective historian.
What are your thoughts?
Nick C.
Recently, I used Audible to "read" this work, and was AMAZED that there is not yet a thread on it nor is there a large awareness of it. McPherson goes into a detailed, statistically backed, primary-source study of the WBTS from perspective of both North an South. He foregoes modernism and modern political ideologies, editorializing only when reflecting on his research process or clarifying the circumstances of the respective Soldier, Sailor, or Marines' writing (for example, after a battle).
McPherson establishes the causes of the men as told in their own words in a methodical way that transcends class, economic status, rank, or branch of service. He addresses the issue of Slavery as a cause particularly well, and objectively, offering quite a bit of beneficial- albeit, politically incorrect- information. His work does not pander to the anti-lost cause foolishness, no does it support the moral high ground both sides feel entitled to. Hs work is beyond invaluable to the objective historian.
What are your thoughts?
Nick C.