Member Review Upon the Fields of Battle: Essays on the Military History of America's Civil War

Part 3: The ready market for books has attracted a large number of nonacademic writers who have produced works of poor quality.


Unfortunately, even a number of professionally trained historians have followed the trend and produced works characterized by extreme bias, faulty analysis, unsubstantiated opinion, and twisted logic. Since such people often teach in colleges and universities, it makes me shudder to think about the quality of work we can expect from their students.
 
I have found a lot of sloppy research and terrible writing for the amount of money charged by the publisher. I further agree with your point that "a lot of talent is wasted on retelling the same Gettysburg stories over and over again"

In my opinion, one of the reasons for the repetition is that historians have ceased to ask new questions of the source materials. Some don't seem to have even read or analyzed the pertinent documents for themselves. Many seem to just accept what has been handed down by earlier historians, thus perpetuating biases and myths.
 
I wonder … did any of the contributors address the increasing prevalence and popularity of private publishing and its effect on Civil War historiography, both good and bad?

Having spent a decade in the publishing industry, I find your question very interesting. Are you perhaps wondering if there is any evidence that self-published books are inferior to those put out by traditional publishers? Many people assume that only those people whose manuscripts aren't accepted by a traditional publisher would want to self-publish, but that is far from true. Many just want to have more control over the publishing process; for example, the title, if and when the book goes out of print, what the interior template looks like, etc. As self-publishing becomes increasingly affordable and as traditional publishers continue to cut costs by doing little to no editing and minimal marketing, I think we'll begin to see the bias again self-publishing disappear. Be that as it may, I would like to hear any answers members might have to your question.
 
Part 25:

Glaze writes in his conclusion that modern Confederate Memory scholarship regards:

Lee, Jackson, and Davis as the holy trinity of Confederate heroes. The Johnston image has been a sort of historiographical apocrypha—acknowledged but marginalized. Yet former Confederates themselves idolized the fallen general and summoned his memory as they tried to come to terms with defeat. In the decades following the Civil War, when those who identified with the Confederacy, whether Jefferson Davis, a veteran, or a member of the UDC, struggled to explain the failure of their cause, they often pointed to the death of Albert Sidney Johnston. The appeal of his postwar memory is anchored in contingency. While it is uncertain whether the Confederacy’s fortunes would have improved had he lived, it is certain that Johnston meant more to the people of the Confederacy in death than he ever did in life.

Upon the Fields of Battle: Essays on the Military History of America's Civil War (Conflicting Worlds: New Dimensions of the American Civil War) . LSU Press. Kindle Edition.
 
Last edited:
It's a hardback book from a university press, which means it's going to cost more. Add to that the fact that books in general are going up in price. Be prepared to spend upwards of $60 for a hardback within a few years.

I don't buy hardbacks simply for this reason.
 
Well, when I asked the question, the only thing that I really wondered about was whether or not self-published books had contributed to the academic/popular history paradox Hess notes. But if you're asking me if I believe self-published books are inferior to those put out by traditional presses, I hadn't thought much about it; I don't believe I can give a blanket yes or no answer. There are some really good ones out there. Daniel Masters', No Greater Glory: The 144th Ohio Volunteer Infantry in the Civil War, (Lulu, 2010) is particularly good. But there are some real stinkers out there, too.

Whether a book is good or bad depends upon several things: subject matter, interpretation/bias, the author's writing ability (and background), the thoroughness of the research, the analysis, and the argument, to name a few. Some books are strictly narratives - regimental histories, for example - and that's fine. Books that contain references and a bibliography are the most useful, but not all of them include those.

In terms of their physical layout, I have seen nothing wrong with the print quality, layout, or binding from any of the publishers, although sometimes photo reproduction lacks crispness.

But, regardless of quality, the goodness with self-published books is that they include subjects that traditional presses often ignore. And that's not always a bad thing.

Two final observations. There was a time was when the term for self-publishing was "vanity press". It's good that not only that phrase, but the stigma attached to it has fallen into disuse.

I hope this answers your question.
 
Conclusion:

This is a book filled with good writing and creative approaches to historical topics. Earl Hess's essay is an important pointer for young historians wondering what is left to write about in the field of Civil War military history. This is not, however, "a rousing call to arms for Civil War historians." Most of the essays will be interesting reading for those of us who have done deep dives into the literature, but apart from Hess, the authors offer examples of new approaches rather than a program for the transformation of the field.

I recommend this book to readers who have finished their 20th, or 200th, battle book and wonder what else is left to write about. Turns out, there is a lot.

20yr75CL.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is something that the historians could write about: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-02.pdf?# Particularly pages xli to xlv.
The reported death rates among US residents was very high in Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas. The death rate for enslaved men was recorded as 1.80% per annum. That was for 1860, which was a relatively good year for Louisiana. Due to a cholera epidemic, the death rate in Louisiana in 1850 had been very high.
A close analysis of the death statistics might affect several subjects, such as the sustained high price of slave labor in New Orleans, and the very high death rate due to disease once large masses of soldiers were stationed in No. Mississippi and on the alluvial plain of the great river. It might also explain why Grant was willing to risk lives to avoid a siege at Vicksburg.
It could even affect why General Halleck and President Lincoln were sceptical of General McClellan's peninsular campaign.
It would certainly contribute to explain why there was so much out migration from the south by 1860. And why the south population density was so much lower that the population density of the northern states.
It also revealing that the Census Bureau divided the country into particular disease sections, to make their point.
 
Well, when I asked the question, the only thing that I really wondered about was whether or not self-published books had contributed to the academic/popular history paradox Hess notes. But if you're asking me if I believe self-published books are inferior to those put out by traditional presses, I hadn't thought much about it; I don't believe I can give a blanket yes or no answer. There are some really good ones out there. Daniel Masters', No Greater Glory: The 144th Ohio Volunteer Infantry in the Civil War, (Lulu, 2010) is particularly good. But there are some real stinkers out there, too.

Whether a book is good or bad depends upon several things: subject matter, interpretation/bias, the author's writing ability (and background), the thoroughness of the research, the analysis, and the argument, to name a few. Some books are strictly narratives - regimental histories, for example - and that's fine. Books that contain references and a bibliography are the most useful, but not all of them include those.

In terms of their physical layout, I have seen nothing wrong with the print quality, layout, or binding from any of the publishers, although sometimes photo reproduction lacks crispness.

But, regardless of quality, the goodness with self-published books is that they include subjects that traditional presses often ignore. And that's not always a bad thing.

Two final observations. There was a time was when the term for self-publishing was "vanity press". It's good that not only that phrase, but the stigma attached to it has fallen into disuse.

I hope this answers your question.
This book is very much aimed at academic military history, so self-publishing is not really an issue here. Especially with the explosion of Kindle books, self-publishing is becoming much easier for authors pursuing a specialized or ignored subject.
 
Back
Top