Who, in your opinion, is the foremost living historian of the American Civil War, and why?

I have seen Bruce Catton's scholarship questioned on this forum but as a writer he has few if any peers in CW circles. In my view, in fact, he has few superiors in any sphere.
Gary Gallagher's lectures are hugely engaging but I must have a special mention for Bud Robertson. He is entirely in command of his brief, he's funny and he exudes a kinda natural warmth which just captures you. Plus I love his accent. I could listen to him every day of the week.
Micky.
 
Francis O'Reilly. His book on the Fredericksburg Campaign is one of the best books I've ever read. Harry Pfanz as his Gettysburg books are amazing. Those two off the top of my head are two of my favorites and some of the best, in my opinion.
James S,

I loved Pfanz's Gettysburg books too. Amazing indeed.
 
I'm a big fan of Foner too.
David Williams. Williams wro
Thanks to everyone who has participated so far. I am learning a lot.
David Williams who is a Professor at Valdosta State University , Ga. Williams book "Bitterly Divided the South's inner Civil War" is a very readable and well researched book about how badly the South was divided about the Confederacy. Internal division's in the South was indeed a major reason why the Confederacy lost.
Leftyhunter
 
Maybe I'm on my own here but I can't narrow it down, if I want information on a specific civil war subject I will read material written by an author that specialises in that particular subject. If I want information on cavalry, weapons or logistics then there are historians that specialise in those subjects, I don't see how one person could claim to be an authority on the entire civil war. Its just not possible to know everything. Maybe there are historians out there that can offer a decent overview of CW history but I would guess that they all much pretty tell the same story, for me personally the best CW historians are those that are experts in their chosen CW field and they are the ones that leave me with a feeling of 'what they don't know isn't worth knowing'..
 
Last edited:
E_just_E - For the Trans-Miss, and Kirby Smith, I would suggest Gary Joiner as a very able historian on point.

For general CW expertise, I join those who nominate Ed Bearss.
 
Maybe I'm on my own here but I can't narrow it down, if I want information on a specific civil war subject I will read material written by an author that specialises in that particular subject. If I want information on cavalry, weapons or logistics then there are historians that specialise in those subjects, I don't see how one person could claim to be an authority on the entire civil war. Its just not possible to know everything. Maybe there are historians out there that can offer a decent overview of CW history but I would guess that they all much pretty tell the same story, for me personally the best CW historians are those that are experts in their chosen CW field and they are the ones that leave me with a feeling of 'what they don't know isn't worth knowing'..

That's one way of looking at it, Waterloo, but I think it's also perhaps a bit pedantic from a layman's perspective. I'm a physicist by profession, and no subject gets more specialized than that. So if one were to ask "who is the most insightful general relativist?", one might expect a different answer than if one asked "who has the deepest understanding of quantum entanglement?" But it is still perfectly legitimate for a layman to ask, "who can best explain the frontiers of physics to laymen like me?" And that question would have yet a different answer. Furthermore, many would not even care to know the gory details of a particular campaign or battle until they had a pretty good idea about the background of the war and the importance of that campaign or battle in the war. One reason I like Guelzo is that his wide angle lens and his close-up lens appear equally good.

If one's intellectual curiosity extends over more subjects than just the American Civil War, then it is not practical to delve into every esoteric aspect of that one subject. As you yourself observed, even professional historians need to specialize, because even people who eat, sleep, and breath a single broad historical subject can't know everything about it.

So the question remains valid as to which historian, or if you like, historians, offer the greatest insights into the subject as a whole, which is what I was driving at in my OP. Perhaps you have advanced to the stage where minutiae are all that is left for you to learn about the Civil War. I'm not there yet and probably never will be. (On the tiny, esoteric, hyper specialized subject of Civil War timepieces, there may be no one more knowledgable than myself, but that may be even less of a boast than it appears.)

I greatly appreciate all the opinions I've received so far. When I'm deciding what to read next on this vast subject, these recommendations will help.
 
Last edited:
This is a difficult one to address because, in my humble estimation, a lot of the better historians have passed away.

I agree. Ever since the neo-Radical view once again became the dominant view among Civil War scholars a few decades ago, there has been a great deal of intolerance and group think in Civil War scholarship.

But, there are some living scholars who have shown a willingness to be objective on some key issues and to debunk some traditional myths. Three come to mind:

-- Dr. Michael Holt, University of Virginia -- Holt has produced tremendous research to prove that the issue of slavery in the territories was a bogus, phony issue. His 2005 book The Fate of Their County: Politics, Slavery Extension, and the Coming of the Civil War drew sharp criticism, but also some praise, from mainstream scholars. Holt's criticism of Lincoln's refusal to compromise on slavery in the territories has drawn especially sharp attacks from traditional historians.

-- Dr. Tom Clemens, a retired professor of history who earned his doctorate in history at George Mason University -- Clemens has argued strongly against the traditional view of General George B. McClellan as a timid, incompetent general. Clemens debunks the main neo-Radical myths about McClellan in his extensive editorial notes in his edited version of Ezra Carman's old book The Maryland Campaign of 1862, Volume 1. Clemens is still active in Civil War research.

-- Dr. Ethan Rafuse, professor of military history at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College -- Rafuse is another Civil War scholar who has challenged the neo-Radical version of General George McClellan's battlefield performance. But Rafuse has gone further than that: He has challenged the claim that McClellan was pro-slavery and disloyal to Lincoln. His 2005 book McClellan’s War: The Failure of Moderation in the Struggle for the Union sent shockwaves through the traditional camp of Civil War scholarship. If you've read any of Rafuse's exchanges with neo-Radical historians, you know that he has more than held his own in those discussions.

Actually, I would add Dr. William Cooper to that list. He's retired now, and he published his last book on the Civil War in 2012, but he's still alive. He was a professor of history at LSU and earned his degrees at Johns Hopkins and Princeton. I met him in 2003 at one of his lectures on Jefferson Davis. His 2012 book We Have the War Upon Us resurrects what was a solidly mainstream position for several decades from the '30s through the '70s, namely, that the war could have been avoided, that the Republicans and the Fire-Eaters sabotaged reasonable compromise plans (more so the Radicals), that Lincoln committed some tragic blunders in the lead-up to the collision at Sumter, etc.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Ever since the neo-Radical view once again became the dominant view among Civil War scholars a few decades ago, there has been a great deal of intolerance and group think in Civil War scholarship.

But, there are some living scholars who have shown a willingness to be objective on some key issues and to debunk some traditional myths. Three come to mind:

-- Dr. Michael Holt, University of Virginia -- Holt has produced tremendous research to prove that the issue of slavery in the territories was a bogus, phony issue. His 2005 book The Fate of Their County: Politics, Slavery Extension, and the Coming of the Civil War drew sharp criticism, but also some praise, from mainstream scholars. Holt's criticism of Lincoln's refusal to compromise on slavery in the territories has drawn especially sharp attacks from traditional historians.

-- Dr. Tom Clemens, a retired professor of history who earned his doctorate in history at George Mason University -- Clemens has argued strongly against the traditional view of General George B. McClellan as a timid, incompetent general. Clemens debunks the main neo-Radical myths about McClellan in his extensive editorial notes in his edited version of Ezra Carman's old book The Maryland Campaign of 1862, Volume 1. Clemens is still active in Civil War research.

-- Dr. Ethan Rafuse, professor of military history at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College -- Rafuse is another Civil War scholar who has challenged the neo-Radical version of General George McClellan's battlefield performance. But Rafuse has gone further than that: He has challenged the claim that McClellan was pro-slavery and disloyal to Lincoln. His 2005 book McClellan’s War: The Failure of Moderation in the Struggle for the Union sent shockwaves through the traditional camp of Civil War scholarship. If you've read any of Rafuse's exchanges with neo-Radical historians, you know that he has more than held his own in those discussions.

Actually, I would add Dr. William Cooper to that list. He's retired now, and he published his last book on the Civil War in 2012, but he's still alive. He was a professor of history at LSU and earned his degrees at Johns Hopkins and Princeton. I met him in 2003 at one of his lectures on Jefferson Davis. His 2012 book We Have the War Upon Us resurrects what was a solidly mainstream position for several decades from the '30s through the '70s, namely, that the war could have been avoided, that the Republicans and the Fire-Eaters sabotaged reasonable compromise plans (more so the Radicals), that Lincoln committed some tragic blunders in the lead-up to the collision at Sumter, etc.

I've read quite a few of your posts on this forum, and I'll take those into account when considering your recommendations. Thanks.
 
-- Dr. Ethan Rafuse, professor of military history at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College -- Rafuse is another Civil War scholar who has challenged the neo-Radical version of General George McClellan's battlefield performance. But Rafuse has gone further than that: He has challenged the claim that McClellan was pro-slavery and disloyal to Lincoln. His 2005 book McClellan’s War: The Failure of Moderation in the Struggle for the Union sent shockwaves through the traditional camp of Civil War scholarship. If you've read any of Rafuse's exchanges with neo-Radical historians, you know that he has more than held his own in those discussions.

I've read quite a few of your posts on this forum, and I'll take those into account when considering your recommendations. Thanks.

The above book is the real deal. I listened to a lecture by Ranger Dan Virmilya regarding McClellan, yesterday, and he referenced Dr. Rafuse with merit.
 
I've read quite a few of your posts on this forum, and I'll take those into account when considering your recommendations. Thanks.

It's actually a fairly good list, though I wouldn't call them the foremost living historians. They're all really good, just not the foremost. Also, while it's a good list, the way the post was worded has no credibility. "Neo-Radical" is a ridiculous term, showing a complete lack of understanding about real historians.

I especially recommend Ethan Rafuse's book on McClellan. Tom Clemens has done good work on Antietam.
 
It's actually a fairly good list, though I wouldn't call them the foremost living historians. They're all really good, just not the foremost. Also, while it's a good list, the way the post was worded has no credibility. "Neo-Radical" is a ridiculous term, showing a complete lack of understanding about real historians.

I especially recommend Ethan Rafuse's book on McClellan. Tom Clemens has done good work on Antietam.

Cash, I thank you and Bee for your insights here.
 
The above book is the real deal. I listened to a lecture by Ranger Dan Virmilya regarding McClellan, yesterday, and he referenced Dr. Rafuse with merit.

Toda raba, Bee. Ani sameakh shay att katavt mashayhu kheyuvi al mashayhu shay katavti! Translation: Thanks a lot, Bee. I'm happy that you wrote something positive about something that I wrote! (I gather from your sigblock info that you have an interest in things Hebrew/Israeli. I speak Hebrew and have studied in Israel, and have a deep love for Israel and her people. One of my few deal-breaking criteria for any modern political candidate is whether the candidate supports Israel.)

Speaking of superb living pro-McClellan scholars, I would mention two more:

Gene Thorp -- Thorp is not a professional historian by trade, but he is one of the most knowledgeable scholars on McClellan alive today, as he proved in his online debate with McClellan Hater in Chief Stephen Sears: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/artsandliving/civilwar/civil-war-email-exchange/. Thorp's other McClellan stuff is here (they are different articles with very similar titles):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...c92fee603a7_story.html?utm_term=.4d9f91485306
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life.../gIQAeSLqmR_story.html?utm_term=.c678bf097c6e

Steven R. Stotelmyer -- Serious students of Antietam know about all about Stotelmyer. I would rank him as one of the top three scholars on the Maryland campaign of 1862. He holds two degrees and is a registered South Mountain and Antietam tour guide with the National Park Service. He has been active in Civil War research for decades and has already published one book on Antietam and South Mountain (it didn't spend any substantive time on McClellan). He gives guest lectures from time to time at Civil War roundtables in the Maryland-Northern Virginia-Pennsylvania region (he gave one last month on McClellan and Lincoln at the Frederick County Civil War Roundtable). His long-awaited book on McClellan's performance in the Maryland campaign, Too Useful to Sacrifice: Reconsidering George B. McClellan’s Generalship in the Maryland Campaign from South Mountain to Antietam, is available for pre-order on Amazon.com (no, I don't get any money for this). Here is an excerpt from the advance promo on the book:

Although typecast as the slow and overly cautious general who allowed Lee’s battered army to escape, in fact, argues Stotelmyer, General McClellan deserves significant credit for defeating and turning back the South’s most able general. He does so through five comprehensive chapters, each dedicated to a specific major issue of the campaign:

Fallacies Regarding the Lost Orders

All the Injury Possible: The Day between South Mountain and Antietam

Antietam: The Sequel to South Mountain

General John Pope at Antietam and the Politics behind the Myth of the Unused Reserves

Supplies and Demands: The Demise of General George B. McClellan

Was McClellan’s response to the discovery of Lee’s Lost Orders really as slow and inept as we have been led to believe?

Although routinely dismissed as a small prelude to the main event at Antietam, was the fighting on South Mountain the real Confederate high tide in Maryland? Is the criticism leveled against McClellan for not rapidly pursuing Lee’s army after the victory on South Mountain warranted? Did McClellan fail to make good use of his reserves in the bloody fighting on September 17? Finally, what is the real story behind McClellan’s apparent “failure” to pursue the defeated Confederate army after Antietam, which triggered President Lincoln’s frustration with him and resulted in his removal?

Utilizing extensive primary documents and with a keen appreciation for the infrastructure of the nineteenth century Maryland terrain, Stotelmyer deeply explores these long-held beliefs, revealing that often the influence of political considerations dictated military decision-making, and the deliberate actions of the Lincoln Administration behind McClellan’s back resulted in bringing about many of the general’s supposed shortcomings. As readers will soon discover, Lincoln did not need to continue searching for a capable commander; he already had one.
Stumbling across pro-McClellan research was one of the best things that ever happened to me as a Civil War student. Reading that research did much to open my eyes to the honorable side of the Union position. I had long respected McClellan because of his opposition to total war, but, like most others, I regarded him as a petty, incompetent general and therefore had little interest in reading about him.
 
...
Stumbling across pro-McClellan research was one of the best things that ever happened to me as a Civil War student. Reading that research did much to open my eyes to the honorable side of the Union position. I had long respected McClellan because of his opposition to total war, but, like most others, I regarded him as a petty, incompetent general and therefore had little interest in reading about him.

So, in other words, you are predisposed toward pro-McClellan scholars because of McClellan's indifference towards slavery, and his antipathy for Lincoln. (The better one can make McClellan look, the worse one can make Lincoln look.) Well that's a big surprise.

I too am interested in Israel, I am even a Cohen Modal Haplotype, and I have studied the history of Zionism, of the state of Israel, and the origins of Arab nationalism. I suspect we may agree even less about those issues than these. But that subject has nothing to do with this thread or this website. So please don't go there.
 
Last edited:
Eric Foner's The Fiery Trial is one of the best books about Lincoln's I've read. I found his later book on abolitionism diffuse. Currently I'm liking James Oakes, both for Freedom National and the one I finished recently The Scorpion's Sting.

I've got a terrible confession to make: I've never read anything by Robertson, although I hear him recommended all over the place. New Year's Resolution(tardy), read Bud!
 
Eric Foner's The Fiery Trial is one of the best books about Lincoln's I've read. I found his later book on abolitionism diffuse. Currently I'm liking James Oakes, both for Freedom National and the one I finished recently The Scorpion's Sting.

I've got a terrible confession to make: I've never read anything by Robertson, although I hear him recommended all over the place. New Year's Resolution(tardy), read Bud!

You will not regret it. Check out his podcasts as well.
 
It's actually a fairly good list, though I wouldn't call them the foremost living historians. They're all really good, just not the foremost. Also, while it's a good list, the way the post was worded has no credibility. "Neo-Radical" is a ridiculous term, showing a complete lack of understanding about real historians.

I coined the term "neo-Radical" by analogy to "neo-Confederate" and it is a reasonable description of those who continue to push the radical republican viewpoint. Alternatives have been put forward by Dimitri Rotov ("centennial school") and the late Joseph Harsh (who called this the "Unionist school" in print and apparently less charitably the "American Heritage school" off print). I think the term "neo-Radical" is a good description of a certain school of thought regards the war.

Essentially it refers to the sudden shift in historiography when journalists instead of historians started dominating the debate in the 1950's. They had an editorial line and they stuck to it. Being well written, readable and generally accessible their ideas quickly became the norm, replacing the historians. Prof. Ludwell Johnson was not the only professor to notice this sudden shift (which he discussing in a 1971 paper), but generally few challenged the journalists as they set the agenda.

I especially recommend Ethan Rafuse's book on McClellan.

Not a book without limitations though. His original Ph.D. thesis was excellent and incredibly insightful into certain areas of McClellan's life. Where it fell down was in having to be expanded into a general military biography, because he had to draw on secondary sources for basic facts and interpret them. This leads to some unfortunate misunderstandings - for example the idea that McClellan had dinner on the Galena whilst the Battle of Glendale is raging was only introduced into the literature by Sears in 1988, and it is not in his quoted source. However, Rafuse simply extracts Sears' erroneous idea and can't explain it, and indeed refuses to try. With access to primary sources the basic facts become quite different and McClellan's actions are easy to understand.

My other bugbear is that Rafuse completely misses McClellan's trip to Washington on 26th-27th August aboard USS Ariel, and without incorporating that into the story nothing makes sense. Sadly this event was given several pages in Cozzen's Pope biography, but that was only just coming out
 
... Essentially it refers to the sudden shift in historiography when journalists instead of historians started dominating the debate in the 1950's. They had an editorial line and they stuck to it. Being well written, readable and generally accessible their ideas quickly became the norm, replacing the historians. Prof. Ludwell Johnson was not the only professor to notice this sudden shift (which he discussing in a 1971 paper), but generally few challenged the journalists as they set the agenda. ...

What are you saying? What exactly was the "agenda" that "replaced" that of the historians? Please spell it out. Are you lamenting the loss of the good old days when everyone knew that the Civil War was about states' rights and northern aggression, and that slavery was a mere side issue?

Oh, and which of the individuals whom others here have praised and recommended did you mean to disparage as mere "journalists?" (I had momentarily forgotten how very fashionable it has become in some circles to disparage journalists nowadays.)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top