Who would you consider to be some of the best and worst Civil War historians based on the multiple books written about this topic over the years? Some names to think about include Douglas S. Freeman, James M. McPherson, Gary W. Gallagher, James I. Robertson, and William C. Davis, among others. Can anybody think of any who you consider to be biased or fair in their research? If there are other names you can add, feel free to do so.
shareI think Shelby Foote is probably the most accurate, and accessible civil war historian that I've ever read. For a southern gentleman, I found his "Civil War: A Narrative", refreshingly unbiased and straightforward. A great writer, and a noble man.
shareFoote was a great stylist, though there were scattered inaccuracies in his work. Catton was a great stylist as well, and a little more accurate than Foote.
There is vastly more info available now than there was when these esteemed gentlemen wrotw, so it is unfair to compare their work with writings of 30-50 years later as far as content goes.
In any case, their bodies of work remain classics, whatever minor flaws they contain.
----------------
As for the modern set: McPherson, Gary Gallagher, Jeffrey Wert, Peter Cozzens, Stephen Sears and Gordon Rhea are among the best. William C. Davis and Bud Robertson are very good as well. And I'm sure I'm missing a couple.
----------------------
As for worst, it is difficult to say since most of the established historians in the current crop are pretty good. I would list among "worst" the hacks like DiLorenzo or Woods (the latter of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to History" and one or two other wretched productions) but I do not consider them to be historians, per se. But for lack of anyone else to list of the top of my head, they'll do.
The Troika of Irrelevancy: bringing off-topic enlightenment to the masses since 2006
I saw McPherson speak at Gettysburg College, and got him to autograph a copy of "For Cause and Comrades". Every student at the college can also take a one semester course at the Civil War Institute. The class is taught by Gabor Borit, and he does demand a lot from first year students. But I cherish the opportunity we had to go to the National Archives and handle actual letters, muster lists, etc.
"SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!!""
Yeah, Woods is a poltroon of the worst sort, not just regarding the Civil War but history in general. He's of the Pat Buchanan school of thought when it comes to World War II, for just one outside example.
"PLEASE DON'T DATE ME! I PROMISE I'LL WORK HARDER!"
What I want to know is who made Pat Buchanan the great decider on the causes of WWII? Is Buchanan one of the great historians of WWII and the 20th century?
I think your or my opinion on WWII are just as relevant as his. If he is speaking of someone like Nixon I can understand listening to him a bit as he advised Nixon but when it comes to WWII I don't think his opinion, statements, or books take any greater relevance over the work of others.
Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.
Agreed. Buchanan is just a mean-spirited windbag. A reasonably intelligent one, to be fair, but he's no expert on much anything - maybe political issues to an extent, but certainly not history or economics or sociology as he claims to be. He was a *beep* speechwriter, not a policy maker or elected official, let alone a professor or historian. His coded xenophobic/racist posturing is really repellant, as is his cherry-picking of select facts which I found in my skimming of his WWII book.
"PLEASE DON'T DATE ME! I PROMISE I'LL WORK HARDER!"
[deleted]
What does Pat Buchanan have to do with Civil War Historians?
Anyway, its good to know you join 99 percent of all liberals in hating Pat Buchanan. Thanks for the ground-breaking post.
Well Hancock the Superb brought him up in discussing poor 'historians'. I was just saying how loopy I found Buchanan on WWII.
If you want some terrible Civil War authors I would have to point out Tom Carhart and his poor work on July 3rd plus 'The Cavalry Battle That Saved the Union: Custer Vs. Stuart at Gettysburg' by Paul D. Walker. Very bad stuff in them.
For excellent Civil War historians I would like to add to my other posts: Noah Andre Trudeau, Gordon Rhea, David Detzer, Stephen Sears, Robert Krick, Jeffry Wert and Albert Castel as I really enjoy their work. I recommend their books and articles highly.
Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.
1. I merely mentioned Buchanan in context with Thomas E. Woods, who HAS written quite a bit on the Civil War.
2. I am not a liberal, at least in the perjorative sense of the term.
"PLEASE DON'T DATE ME! I PROMISE I'LL WORK HARDER!"
1. I merely mentioned Buchanan in context with Thomas E. Woods, who HAS written quite a bit on the Civil War.
No you didn't "merely mention him" - you went on some crazy off-topic 100 word rant attacking him. Please warn us in advance next time you decide to free associate.
Because I was asked about him you pillock. Read the thread again.
Answering someone's question is hardly off-topic, especially since Buchanan styles himself (among his many other amazing talents) an historian.
"PLEASE DON'T DATE ME! I PROMISE I'LL WORK HARDER!"
[deleted]
OK, so your first defense was "I hardly mentioned him" - that got shot down.
Now its "I was asked about him" and "Buchanan is A historian".
Logic 101 - an extensive off-topic answer to an off-topic question is still off-topic. Secondly, the thread is about the Civil War historians - not WW II historians. In any case, your rant had more to do with your personal dislike of "racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe/wife-beater/satanist" Pat Buchanan.
You seem to be one of these people who can't let things go. I can
And finis.
No contradiction there - I only brought Buchanan up initially to illustrate Woods' stance on World War II. My later "rant", as you call it, was in reply to someone else who expanded on my statement. So what's your point?
Inasmuch as you're the one who decided to pick a fight over something you claim to be "off-topic", I'd hardly say you're doing a great job of "letting things go".
"If life gives you lemons, choke on 'em and die. You stupid lemon eater."
Just to toss in a personal anecdote: I spent two evenings in the company of Pat Buchanan, not long after he left the Nixon White House, while I was a student at Georgetown University. Buchanan impressed me as one of the most charming, most erudite, most charismatic men I have ever met. You are wrong about him in one respect: he is a serious historian and political expert, well-versed in economics. He is a contentious talking head by profession, and so in the heat of the moment I, as obviously you also have, heard him make any number of factual errors in his arguments. Chalk it up to the heat of the moment; this guy has serious smarts, in depth. Yes, he cherry-picks facts in his books, but he is writing either political polemic or narrative history, not scholarly work, and in those kinds of books cherry-picking is allowed if not expected. Buchanan is impressive as hell. And the list of people I have met includes four presidents, two vice presidents, five prime ministers, two Supreme Court Justices, and a baker's dozen each of Cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, and governors, over 30 senators, nearly 80 congresspeople, eight world-renowned conductors, a number of famous authors, athletes, politicians, and literally hundreds of award-winning actors and directors. And seriously, Pat Buchanan's starpower was easily in the top five. (The other four? Probably the late great Dr. Isaac Asimov, former Illinois governor Big Jim Thompson, the peerless David Addington, former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney and vice-president of the Heritage Foundation, and the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.) As I listened to him and engaged him on several topics, it became clear to me. I am an atheist, and whenever that is relevant to any possible bias I may have on a topic at hand, I disclose that fact, so I had told him this. I was raised Jewish and my surname is recognizably Jewish. So even though I was no longer a Jew, I got the clear impression that if this man ever came to power, he might just flatter me, impress me, charm me, and gas me in a concentration camp. In my life, I have moved from the radical left to the neoconservative right, but Pat Buchanan stands out as one of the scariest people I ever knew, and a great reminder of something I have long believed: the worst of far-left Democrats want to tell me what to do but aren't really all that concerned or bothered when I don't listen, and so the worst arrow in their quiver is that they want to take all my money and waste it. The worst of right-wing Republicans, however, for several reasons - my Jewish background, my Catholic education, my atheism, my support for gay marriage and abortion rights, among others - literally want to either see me dead, executed for my beliefs, or forever excluded from whatever theocracy it is their worst fantasies envision as God's mission for them.
That's Pat Buchanan - shadow Fuehrer.
Gordon P. Clarkson
I think McPherson wrote the best single-volume History of The War,although his liberal Political bias does sometimes show through.Foote is a great writer and TV commentator but it must be remembered that he is not a trained Historian. This latter point is true of Catton,(His failure to quote References is particularly unfortunate), too, but he writes great Narrative History,and it was His Work which introduced me ( A Non-American) to The Civil War when I was a boy.
Even though they give some information, does anybody think that the biographies of Robert E. Lee by Douglas Southall Freeman and "Stonewall" Jackson by James I. Robertson come off as being biased? I particularly noticed this with the Jackson biography.
shareHis failure to quote References is particularly unfortunate), too
Gordon P. Clarkson
I must offer my appologies,I have not read Catton since I was a boy,not exactly yesterday I assure You ! .It was not my intention to "Mispeak" as the Politicians now say !.I am in the process of reading Brian Holden Reid's Biography of Lee ,"Robert E.Lee icon For A Nation " and it is a very good ,balanced account of His Career which respects the General without being overawed.
I have read both of the major biographies of both authors. I think Freeman was a little biased in Lee's favor, and I always understood that his biography of Lee always had that reputation. As far as Robertson's book, I don't think it was biased. He gives an honest look at Stonewall as a peculiar figure, offering every anecdote availble from his years as a student and teacher and he did not try to "explain" Jackson's behavior in a favorable light in that regard. I noticed that Bud did examine Jackson's military decisions and only once or twice did he judge Jackson's command poorly, but then again, that is why Jackson has the reputation he does, he was simply that brilliant in battle.
"Shoooosh!!" -Michael DeLuise
Frank Vandiver (pres of TAMU) covered Jackson first and best.
shareRobertson's book is dire.
Over long, convoluted and falacious.
I already made a stand-alone post about Shelby Foote, but I think it bears mentioning again here. Obviously, a large part of being an historian is about researching the past, and, arguably, Shelby Foote might... MIGHT... not be the best researcher. However, an even larger part of being an historian is imparting what you've learned to others in a way that truly lets them grasp and understand the past. An historian who can't communicate is, quite simply, a bad historian. Shelby Foote, regardless of his "training", is a brilliant historian because nobody... NOBODY... before or since his "Narrative" was published has done half as good a job at making people understand what really happened between 1861 and 1865. Mind you, I say this as an historian myself and as an unabashed, lifelong Northerner who typically finds a Southerner's perspective on the civil war maddening (at best).
shareThank you! He's my favorite for the reasons you mention.
shareFreeman, Gallagher, Robertson, Davis, Catton, and Foote are among my favorites.
I also like the current work of Civil War historians like Eric Wiitenberg and J.D. Petruzzi are very good. I really have enjoyed the work of Earl Hess especially his Pickett's charge book and as the coauthor of Pea Ridge. I like Stephen Sears work too.
For the Western Theater I am a big fan of Peter Cozzens and love his work on the Western battles. His John Pope and Shenandoah 1862 books are good too. I like Wiley Sword and am a fan of his book on Shiloh. Larry Daniels has done good work on the Western Theater. Steven Woodworth is good too. Thomas Connally is a legend in talking about the Army of Tennessee. Eric Jacobson has written an excellent new history on the Battle of Franklin.
Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.
By the way, we're leaving out one of the greats, Ed Bearss. If you haven't seen him in person, you don't know anything about the Civil War. His research is superb. Also Dr. Susannah (Bruce) Ural is a great writer and excellent researcher.
shareHarry Pfanz is another one I haven't seen mentioned yet. His First and Second Day books are superb. He also wrote a great one on Little Round Top and Cemetery Hill.
Come in number 7. Your time's up.
I also forgot to mention John J. Hennessy who wrote a wonderful book on the Battle of Second Manassass and Ethan Rafuse who is one of the best of the new breed of Civil War historians.
Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.
I've read several books by Edward J. Stackpole (most notably From Cedar Mountain To Antietam) and he's probably my favorite Civil War historian. Most of his books seem to be out of print though.
"PLEASE DON'T DATE ME! I PROMISE I'LL WORK HARDER!"
Yes, I enjoy his books too. I collected all of them before they went out of print.
I would also recommend A.A. Hoeling's 'Vicksburg: 47 Days of Siege' and 'Last Train from Atlanta'.
Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.
Grady McWhiney is terrible. We had to read Attack & Die in one of my classes. The first 8 or so chapters were very good, if a bit dry. The last was a bunch of totally unsupported crap that had nothing to do with the rest of it. "Here is all the evidence. And here is my completely off-the-wall never even hinted at conclusion." The lecture on that reading was spectacular, as my prof picked apart that mound of utterly nonsensical drivel.
---------------------
If Adolph Hitler flew in today, you'd send a limousine anyway
This looks a contender for the latter:
http://cwmemory.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/51k3yuRVRmL._SS500_.jpg
"Some men will say we are traitors. Some will say we're patriots. Both will be wrong."
Yes, that looks like an incredibly terrible book.
Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.
Dr. David Blight-Yale
share