Shelby Foote's "Civil War" - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk

Home

Not logged in - Login | Register

Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Shelby Foote's "Civil War"

Moderated by: javal1

Page: 1 2 3

New Topic

Printer Friendly

Shelby Foote's "Civil War"

Rating:

Author	Post

Posted: Wed May 16th, 2012 04:14 pm

Quote

21^st Post

JG6789
Member

Joined:	Mon Apr 23rd, 2012
Location:
Posts:	71
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Savez wrote:
Because McPherson's is a liberal pro-Lincoln revisionist. Plus he criticized Alabama girl Condoleeza Rice. McPherson's only redeeming quality is his work on battlefield preservation. I put very little stock in his cherry picked research in works such as For Cause and Comrades.

Cheers, mate. I figured it was something like that.

Quote

Posted: Wed May 16th, 2012 07:51 pm

Quote

22^nd Post

HankC
Member

Joined:	Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:
Posts:	513
Status:	Offline
Mana:

you disapprove of his methods or his conclusions?

IIRC, he studied thousands of primary documents - mostly letters from the soldiers...

Quote

You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post

You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post

Posted: Sat May 19th, 2012 04:42 am

Quote

25^th Post

Hellcat
Person

Joined:	Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location:	USA
Posts:	679
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Joel Smith wrote:
History being what it is we, as in United States citizens, tend to think of the war monolithically in terms of a block of good versus a block of evil.

That seems to be how the war is taught to us from an early age in school. I've lived up and down the east coast from just a few weeks of age (yes, just a few weeks of age, I was born in California and we moved back east when I was like two or three weeks old). We moved from NC to New England just before my 12th birthday and I had kids taunting me because of my accent and because I'd come from down South. The South was taught to them as being something to be hated for the watr and the North to be lauded for winning the war. So they felt the need to pick on this Southern boy as being from the South and thus being illiterate in comparison to them. They did get surprised when I knew more on certain subjects than they did and wasn't the illiterate they expected.

Quote

Posted: Sat May 19th, 2012 01:35 pm

Quote

26^th Post

JG6789
Member

Joined:	Mon Apr 23rd, 2012
Location:
Posts:	71
Status:	Offline
Mana:

People are tribal and can be very proprietary about history. Just consider how many say “we” and “us” while discussing events that happened long before they were born.

Quote

Posted: Tue May 22nd, 2012 02:09 am

Quote

27^th Post

Mark
Member

Joined:	Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:
Posts:	434
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Savez, can you provide a specific example of what you mean when you say that "McPherson's is a liberal pro-Lincoln revisionist." History by its very nature is "revisionist" since new generations ask different questions about the past. Thanks.

Mark

Quote

You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post

Posted: Wed May 23rd, 2012 01:20 pm

Quote

28^th Post

Savez
Guest

Joined:
Location:
Posts:
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Mark wrote: Savez, can you provide a specific example of what you mean when you say that "McPherson's is a liberal pro-Lincoln revisionist." History by its very nature is "revisionist" since new generations ask different questions about the past. Thanks.

Mark

There is no doubt that McPherson is a liberal.

Here is his take on revisionism...

http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0309/0309pre1.cfm

And he idolizes Lincoln.

Hence "liberal pro-Lincoln revisionist"

Now I understand "revisionist" can be a good thing sometimes. But usually that ends up being "this guys said this, but I think he really meant this". For example it seems to be a trend that when a Confedereate soldier wrote that he was fighting for his home, mothers, and wives, historians "revise" it to mean that he was fighting for their protection against the slaves that would be free, not from the invading Yankee army. McPherson is in this camp. Some may have meant that, but I doubt it. We can't always take everything in history as indisputable fact but sometimes what somebody says is actually what they meant. We weren't there. We live in a different time. We don't know what they were feeling or what they actually meant. To pretend otherwise is a gross oversimplification of history. And I think this is especially true with the Civil War.

"I find it obnoxious, but it's extremely typical. The people that emphasize Confederate heritage and the legacy, and the importance of understanding Confederate history, want to deny that Confederate history was ultimately bound up with slavery. But that was the principal reason for secession -- that an anti-slavery party was elected to the White House. . . . And without secession, there wouldn't have been a war."

--James McPherson's reaction to Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell's proclomation of Confederate history month.

Hogwash! I am one of "the people that emphasize my Confederate heritage and the legacy" and I do not deny that Confederate history was bound up with slavery. Slavery however, was not the "principal reason" that Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, or Tennessee seceded. It was Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers. Tennessee didn't even hold a convention until after his call for troops. It is these blanket statements by he and others like him that leave a bad taste in my mouth. McPherson is "eat up" with the "treasury of virtue". I have disdain for anything he writes. Like I said his only redeeming quality is his work on Civil War battlefield preservation.

Last edited on Wed May 23rd, 2012 01:29 pm by

Quote

Posted: Wed May 23rd, 2012 01:42 pm

Quote

29^th Post

9Bama
Member

Joined:	Mon May 10th, 2010
Location:
Posts:	106
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Savez wrote: I've never read Shelby Foote's books although I enjoyed his commentary on Ken Burns's series. The reason I haven't read them is because they are narratives. However, I would put more stock in Foote's "narratives" than I would James McPherson's "scholarly works".
AMEN!

Quote

Posted: Wed May 23rd, 2012 07:58 pm

Quote

30^th Post

HankC
Member

Joined:	Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:
Posts:	513
Status:	Offline
Mana:

obviously the call for troops was not the primary reason for the first seven states to secede and they certainly seceded over the slavery issue.

when the first 3 tires leave the road the fourth is not far behind

Quote

Posted: Wed May 23rd, 2012 09:57 pm

Quote

31^st Post

JG6789
Member

Joined:	Mon Apr 23rd, 2012
Location:
Posts:	71
Status:	Offline
Mana:

HankC wrote:
obviously the call for troops was not the primary reason for the first seven states to secede and they certainly seceded over the slavery issue.

The same is obviously true for Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee. The thing is states are not people. There were plenty of fire eaters in all of those states who were ready to secede early. The only real difference between the upper South and the lower South was in the number of conditional unionists—many of whom were ready to secede over slavery but needed a bit more of a nudge.

Quote

Posted: Wed May 23rd, 2012 10:06 pm

Quote

32^nd Post

JG6789
Member

Joined:	Mon Apr 23rd, 2012
Location:
Posts:	71
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Food for thought:

State - Percent Slaves - Number per Owner

Deep South

S. Carolina - 57.2 - 15
Mississippi - 55.2 - 14
Louisiana - 46.8 - 15
Alabama - 45.1 - 13
Florida - 43.9 - 12
Georgia - 43.7 - 11
Texas - 30.2 - 8

Upper South

N. Carolina - 33.4 - 9
Virginia - 30.7 - 9
Arkansas - 25.5 - 9
Tennessee - 24.8 - 7

Quote

Posted: Thu May 24th, 2012 01:35 am

Quote

33^rd Post

HankC
Member

Joined:	Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:
Posts:	513
Status:	Offline
Mana:

in freehling's books on the secession crises, he makes the excellent point that the lower south had to do *something* to keep the upper south 'in line'.

the history of states abolishing slavery shows that the emancipation movement gains enough momentum to win as slave-owning drops to 10% of the population.

the upper south, due to slave sales farther south and immigration, is fast approaching the 10% threshhold in 1860.

this accounts for the frenzy of attempts at such things as re-opening the international slave trade, enslaving all free blacks and expansion into central america and the carribean...

Quote

Posted: Thu May 24th, 2012 02:37 am

Quote

34^th Post

Mark
Member

Joined:	Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:
Posts:	434
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Sorry, I didn't mean my question to turn into a discussion of the causes of the war. Savez, you are correct when you state that, politically, Jim McPherson is a liberal. I fail, however, to see how this matters to his credentials as a historian. He examines his evidence, comes to a conclusion based on that evidence and presents his argument to readers. Revision of existing historical assumptions by looking at new evidence or old evidence in a new way is the essence of historical research. He has studied literally thousands of primary sources and formed his conclusions from those. I'm not aware of any point in his published works (and I have read them all) where he suggests that every Southern soldier was fighting to protect slavery. The closest you would come to that would be in Joe Glatthar's works. As to Lincoln, I would point you to "Tried by War: Lincoln as Commander in Chief." In that work, I think you will find that he paints Lincoln not as a demigod or a devil, but as a man, with both flaws and good attributes. For instance, McPherson castigates Lincoln for his deference to McClellan and for appointing many generals to positions well above their competence levels. I think you may find this passage of interest, "Whether...violations of civil liberties constitute a negative legacy that offsets the positive legacy of the Union and emancipation is a question everyone must decide for himself or herself." (pp. 270) I doubt we will come to any conclusion here, but I do hope you will eventually give him another chance. While you may not agree with his arguments, McPherson is the major Civil War historian of our time and cannot simply be dismissed.

Mark

Quote

Posted: Thu May 24th, 2012 01:30 pm

Quote

35^th Post

HankC
Member

Joined:	Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:
Posts:	513
Status:	Offline
Mana:

all generalizartions are false, including this one, but men tend to fight who their leaders say to fight...

Quote

You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post

You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post

You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post

You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post

Posted: Thu May 24th, 2012 04:30 pm

Quote

39^th Post

Savez
Guest

Joined:
Location:
Posts:
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Mark wrote: Sorry, I didn't mean my question to turn into a discussion of the causes of the war. Savez, you are correct when you state that, politically, Jim McPherson is a liberal. I fail, however, to see how this matters to his credentials as a historian. He examines his evidence, comes to a conclusion based on that evidence and presents his argument to readers. Revision of existing historical assumptions by looking at new evidence or old evidence in a new way is the essence of historical research. He has studied literally thousands of primary sources and formed his conclusions from those. I'm not aware of any point in his published works (and I have read them all) where he suggests that every Southern soldier was fighting to protect slavery. The closest you would come to that would be in Joe Glatthar's works. As to Lincoln, I would point you to "Tried by War: Lincoln as Commander in Chief." In that work, I think you will find that he paints Lincoln not as a demigod or a devil, but as a man, with both flaws and good attributes. For instance, McPherson castigates Lincoln for his deference to McClellan and for appointing many generals to positions well above their competence levels. I think you may find this passage of interest, "Whether...violations of civil liberties constitute a negative legacy that offsets the positive legacy of the Union and emancipation is a question everyone must decide for himself or herself." (pp. 270) I doubt we will come to any conclusion here, but I do hope you will eventually give him another chance. While you may not agree with his arguments, McPherson is the major Civil War historian of our time and cannot simply be dismissed.

Mark
I think he comes to a conclusion, and then cherrypicks his evidence, and then presents his argument. But I will try and consider giving him another chance. I have to admit I haven't read For Cause and Comrades or Battle Cry of Freedom since college. But they both left a bad taste in my mouth. Some might consider him "the major Civil War historian of our time" but I do not, and will never consider him as such. But I appreciate your opinion. Its nothing personal toward you.

Quote

Posted: Thu May 24th, 2012 05:21 pm

Quote

40^th Post

HankC
Member

Joined:	Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:
Posts:	513
Status:	Offline
Mana:

That fairly sums up the entire secession experience. A small number lead the party, state, region and country to destruction.

A small group breaks up the Democratic party in Charleston, South Carolina (the 2^nd smallest southern state of free population).

SC leads the charge out of the union, followed by Mississippi, the 3^rd smallest southern state, and then Florida, the smallest southern state.

It’s the best historical US example of front-loaded, wedge issue, momentum politics. The early ‘leaders’ have the smallest population (SC, MS and FL) but momentum gains with each secession. It’s truly a masterful job of political maneuvering

When Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas join the CSA they add 4 states to 7 but more than double the free white population…

Quote

Current time is 08:30 am	Page: 1 2 3
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Shelby Foote's "Civil War"	Top