Member Review Shelby Foote

[G Low]

Bruce's 1 book in the trilogy "Never call Retreat" says it all …. Sad book if you're a southerner. As all books about the war between the states. "Rebel Yell" was another tearful read. At least in the books about Forrest he doesn't get killed. Shelby was a great storyteller who will be missed. Who would not want to go trout fishing and camping for a week with him along?? Sipping on a jar of homemade peach or apple moonshine, I might add….

Be like fishing with Hemingway or better!!

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Bruce's 1 book in the trilogy "Never call Retreat" says it all …. Sad book if you're a southerner. As all books about the war between the states. "Rebel Yell" was another tearful read. At least in the books about Forrest he doesn't get killed.

As a history/political science major in college, I was required to read a couple of Catton's works. While he presented a lot of great information, I didn't like his writing style. I struggled to finish his books. But as has been said, such is a personal preference.

Shelby was a great storyteller who will be missed. Who would not want to go trout fishing and camping for a week with him along?? Sipping on a jar of homemade peach or apple moonshine, I might add….

Indeed !

I don't know if I could spend an entire week with Foote, but a long weekend sounds fun.

 

[Booklady]

As a narrative historian for regular guys I far prefer Bruce Catton to Foote. And Catton had footnotes. I think much of Foote's reputation is based on his being "as seen on TV". And I didn't care for that TV show anyway and if I never hear Ashokan Farewell again it's aces with me.

The Sullivan Ballou letter was pretty moving, though.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

I kept thinking that I was far too much of a "scholar" to read a history book that was thoroughly researched, i.e., with footnotes, but everytime I would resolve to put his book down for good I'd pick it up again and keep reading, and I finally resolved that I would make an exception for Shelby and read his "narrative" anyway b/c it was so **** compelling, AND, I figured it'd be the best way for me to relatively quickly (took me 6 mths) get a good overview of the entire war, N vs S, E vs W, guerillas vs regulars, Navy vs Infantry, privateers vs Navy, etc. and I believe I made the right choice. I read it in 1987 and I believe I've likely retained a solid 90% of what he wrote, at least. I amaze myself sometimes that my recall is so good. I've never been famous for it before! : )

I only read it a few years ago, and probably don't recall as much of it as you do!

 

[edfranksphd]

I only read it a few years ago, and probably don't recall as much of it as you do!

TYPO ALERT!! (Sorry). I meant to include the [negative] in the intro sentence above, as follows, "I kept thinking that I was far too much of a 'scholar' to read a history book that was [NOT] thoroughly researched, i.e., with footnotes," but I didn't. I hope the gist of my meaning was still apparent. I'm still waiting for ChatGPT to allow me to "type what I meant" rather than type what I typed!? : )

 

[Doc_Ralph]

I'm a fan of Shelby Foote and especially James I. Robertson too. One historian you might enjoy if you want a more Union perspective on the war who loves Civil War history and is entertaining is the late Edwin Bearss. His knowledge of the Vicksburg campaign is second to none and he also knows the battle of Gettysburg like the back of his hand.

Being a Southerner, I can say that most Southerners are natural born storytellers, whether what they say is true or not. If you ask a Southerner a simple question it can turn into a thirty minute story before you'll get an answer.

Quite true and sometimes we meander off topic and then circle back. I am guilty of that with Cedar Creek.

Foote's prose is just as entertaining and informative as his whiskey soaked drawl. I appreciate him as he was an artilleryman during WW2 as my Yankee grandfather was in the Great War. I in my humble way with my four years "experience" pale besides these "giants" of men.

Bearss has to be heard as he was/is a treasure. The amount of knowledge these men possessed was astonishing. I have trouble remembering all the details of the "battles" I have participated in!

I like all the classics - McPherson & et al. Although I am a poor reader - these writers have a way of capturing one's attention and carrying it to its end.

As a doer and hands on kinda guy this applies to zip lining and other "stupid" stuff I have done during my time on the planet.

And so it is with my new endeavor of CW surgeon. I am sure I could go beyond Dr. Gross et al. However, how hard can it be? Four limbs or you are fishing. Battling miasma .

I fear that I have tarried off the path of this discussion thread. So it is absolutely true about Southern guys and I assume gals getting sidetracked up some dead end canyon. Or wandering around Cedar Creek in the dark,

YHS,
Doc Ralph

At Spotsy CH

 

[TallTallMan]

I've been reading the Chapman biography but it's kind of negative, doing the "thesis throughout his life" bull that Bertram Wyatt-Brown does.

 

[SSVilla]

I have only just started to read Shelby Foote's first volume narrative of the civil war. It's 40 + hours narrated, therefore this will take me some time and I have no idea that I will be able to finish it. It's going to have to keep me interested, but I'll see how it goes.

I am starting to understand the criticism however. Before I thought he'd be Lost Cause-y and I avoided him on that account, but that's not it. He has been fairly balanced so far. However, a couple of things I have noticed:

(1.) The context for the civil war (the background) is very superficially covered and is limited to a brief political narrative that doesn't provide a good enough explanation for a conflict of that magnitude. Other narratives like McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom set the stage better, describing succinctly the antebellum Americans North and South, the political and economic issues that separated them, and how the animosity, hostility, and political tensions increased an ever widening divide over the future of the country and the spread or containment of slavery until things erupted in a civil war. Shelby doesn't really build that escalating tension very well. His narrative started with secession already underway and it's discussed briefly as a political issue. He accomplished the description in a fair manner by focusing equally on Davis and Lincoln to start. He was balanced in this, but I felt like something was missing.

(2.) Was Jeff Davis really crying on the U.S. Senate floor when he announced he was going back to Mississippi after his state seceded? Shelby's description was of a sorrowful, crying Davis. Without footnotes or anything to corroborate that, one is left wondering whether colorful descriptions like this are Shelby adding his interpretation to enrich the narrative, whether he read this in an old newspaper somewhere, or this is an embellished story? There are just things he describes that make one wonder how he could have known them.

I've been reading the Chapman biography but it's kind of negative, doing the "thesis throughout his life" bull that Bertram Wyatt-Brown does.

What's that thesis about?

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

I really enjoyed Shelby Foote's trilogy. Although I agree with Foote's fault (....like a foot-fault in tennis..HaHa) of failing to use footnotes, his trilogy is an excellent summary of the Civil War. If some author tried to go in depth for such a trilogy, it might be 60,000 pages long, and would take about 6 to 10 years to write and footnote. I doubt that we will ever have such a writing. Back to Foote, the failure to use footnotes does lend liability for criticism of Foote regarding the validity of some specific points. I still maintain a very positive view of his work.

 

[lizkk01]

I had the three volumes of Foote's work. I gave them to my daughter. She is an academic with a PhD in American history focusing on the Civil War and reconstruction. Her purpose in accepting the volumes was to have them on her office bookshelf because, well, everyone else does. It took me two years to persuade her to take them. She sees Foote as a good storyteller but a middling historian.

 

[huskerblitz]

(2.) Was Jeff Davis really crying on the U.S. Senate floor when he announced he was going back to Mississippi after his state seceded? Shelby's description was of a sorrowful, crying Davis. Without footnotes or anything to corroborate that, one is left wondering whether colorful descriptions like this are Shelby adding his interpretation to enrich the narrative, whether he read this in an old newspaper somewhere, or this is an embellished story? There are just things he describes that make one wonder how he could have known them.

I've read it in other accounts, but I don't have access to my newspaper archive account right now, but, like several other stories Foote tells in his narrative, are retold in other accountings. So it's plausible.

 

[A. Roy]

I am starting to understand the criticism however. Before I thought he'd be Lost Cause-y and I avoided him on that account, but that's not it. He has been fairly balanced so far.

I've never been able to agree with this criticism, at least based on the text of the trilogy itself. I think he did say some things in interviews that people didn't like. One commentator seemed to base her criticism on his southern accent!
AR

 

[A. Roy]

(1.) The context for the civil war (the background) is very superficially covered and is limited to a brief political narrative that doesn't provide a good enough explanation for a conflict of that magnitude. Other narratives like McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom set the stage better,

I see what you're saying. One reason for this difference between Foote and McPherson might be put down to the distinctive purpose of each author. McPherson is writing as a historian, whereas Foote is writing as a storyteller. I liked his approach opening the narrative with Davis and Lincoln beginning their respective leadership roles.
AR

 

[SSVilla]

I've read it in other accounts, but I don't have access to my newspaper archive account right now, but, like several other stories Foote tells in his narrative, are retold in other accountings. So it's plausible.

I read where he described W.T.Sherman's statements about war in Louisiana "You southern people don't know what you're doing! " etc and then his visit to Washington where Lincoln tells him that they will manage to keep house leaving Sherman fuming and cursing politicians.

These were verbatim quotes from Sherman's memoirs. I recognized them because I have read Sherman's memoirs, but otherwise the lack of a simple citation would leave the doubt for someone who has never read them.

For his descriptions that I have never seen anywhere else I am indeed left wondering about the authenticity vs the author's novelistic style.

 

[SSVilla]

I see what you're saying. One reason for this difference between Foote and McPherson might be put down to the distinctive purpose of each author. McPherson is writing as a historian, whereas Foote is writing as a storyteller. I liked his approach opening the narrative with Davis and Lincoln beginning their respective leadership roles.
AR

I think the storyteller description is probably the key here.

 

[huskerblitz]

(2.) Was Jeff Davis really crying on the U.S. Senate floor when he announced he was going back to Mississippi after his state seceded? Shelby's description was of a sorrowful, crying Davis. Without footnotes or anything to corroborate that, one is left wondering whether colorful descriptions like this are Shelby adding his interpretation to enrich the narrative, whether he read this in an old newspaper somewhere, or this is an embellished story? There are just things he describes that make one wonder how he could have known them.

I'm having trouble finding a narrative of Davis giving his speech...the search results are in the hundreds, and it would take more time than I currently have to devote to this search. But what I've found is the setting was pretty subdued and sorrowful. Only Senator Mallory is mentioned as crying but I did find reference to senators weeping during the speeches. I have included just a couple of clips I came across. So again, not impossible Davis might have shed a tear or two, but in the 30 minutes or so of searching, I didn't find an exact reference to him weeping.

 

[SSVilla]

I'm having trouble finding a narrative of Davis giving his speech...the search results are in the hundreds, and it would take more time than I currently have to devote to this search. But what I've found is the setting was pretty subdued and sorrowful. Only Senator Mallory is mentioned as crying but I did find reference to senators weeping during the speeches. I have included just a couple of clips I came across. So again, not impossible Davis might have shed a tear or two, but in the 30 minutes or so of searching, I didn't find an exact reference to him weeping.

View attachment 532607

View attachment 532608

Thanks for this trouble. I wouldn't have expected you to search for this.

 

[huskerblitz]

Thanks for this trouble. I wouldn't have expected you to search for this.

Nah, I love researching stuff like this. Just trying to survive to end of the school semester, though.

 

[TallTallMan]

What's that thesis about?

I meant to respond to this!

He has this thesis that Foote's Southern Gentleman persona was incompatible with his support for Civil Rights. He seems to be implying Foote was, in short, a closet r*cist. I'm Southern; if I'm a gentlemen, does that maker me r*cist?

He claims (i.e. theorizes without proof) that Foote wrote the ACW to avoid facing "r*cial realities", and should've wrote a more slave-focused narrative. This is laughable because Chapman makes numerous trivial errors about the ACW, like whoever "James" Mosby is and how Sherman burned Atlanta before the Wilderness.

 

[TallTallMan]

I've never been able to agree with this criticism, at least based on the text of the trilogy itself. I think he did say some things in interviews that people didn't like. One commentator seemed to base her criticism on his southern accent!

Agree totally.