"Best Military History Of The War?" Topic

Hi all,

I'm fairly new to the ACW period.

I'm currently reading Battle Cry Of Freedom (McPherson) for a general history of the ACW. I also have Grant's memoirs lined up on Kindle. What I'm looking for now is a good book covering the purely (or mostly) military side of the war – campaigns, battles, weapons, maps etc.

Any suggestions?

TIA!
Jay

Centennial History of the Civil War by Bruce Catton and
The Civil War: A Narrative by Shelby foote

'Decisive Battles of the Civil War' by Lt. Col. Joseph B. Mitchell is a good, introductory military history of the war. The maps are good and as an added bonus it is designed to be a guidebook if you want to visit the battlefields.

For weapons and tactics, 'Battle Tactics of the American Civil War' (which has also been published under the title 'Rally Once Again') by Paddy Griffith is very good.

The Time/Life books on each battle are pretty good too.

Shelby Foote seconded here.

Shelby Foote, his three volumes.

Next, Bruce Catton series.

I found McPherson's "Battlecry of Freedom" to be terrible revisionist history. Extremely anti-Southern in its views.

To be more blunt a piece of trash written by an ivory towered history professor that was a waste of time to read. Just my view, but I have read hundreds of books on the period and have done some undergrad teaching on the subject myself.

Before someone brings up "He liked your book", I doubt he has read either of my works.

But I don't hang around to elitist college professor crowd anymore. They really aren't much fun.

Another for Shelby Foote.

I'm not a fan of McPherson's work either. I found numerous mistakes when I read it 20+ years ago.

Shelby Foote for me as well.

Love Shelby Foot

If you can get the Time/Life Map book it is a great companion piece – I have one and love using it to help reference the terrain; it has some great 3-D style drawings

Funny, McPherson's viewpoint seemed spot-on to me. He avoided all the musty "Lost Cause" rhetoric.

Shelby Foote, by far.

And get ahold of the Ken Burns documentary to listen to Shelby Foote and others talking about the war.

Rick

Pan Marek, that is a wonderful example of values dissonance. Fans of the Lost Cause will consider real history to be "revisionist", while people who reject the Lost Cause consider it to be the actual historical revisionism.

Whilst I enjoyed Shelby Foote (though I think he was a much better raconteur than he was a writer) and I think Bruce Catton is superb (I think he is one of the finest writers in the English language) I'm not sure that I would recommend either of their trilogies to someone looking for "a good book covering the purely (or mostly) military side of the war".

Both Catton and Shelby Foote.

I also like the books by Trudeau.

Eric

I have no illusions about the "Lost Cause" or views that the Southern desire for independence would have maintained a dream land from "Gone With The Wind".

I also do not take the view that everything that lead to the war was because of Southern actions, society and beliefs.

McPherson is a revisionist because he attempts to paint a 19th century culture with the views held by a late 20th century society. You can't apply modern moral views to a 150 years old group. It doesn't work.

That is where he fails.

"Real history" does not include letting your personal beliefs effect your work when viewing events in the past.

The book I personally liked the best was the abridged (in three books) " Lee's Lieutenants".Not saying it's the best.

Reading all three volumes is an epic undertaking. They are good, but abridged is better for fun reading.

Definitely watch the Ken Burns' documentary. It is very easy to get caught up in the big picture, large campaigns etc. Burns always brings it back to the man on the ground, the human story. It will help you understand reaction rolls and morale tests results when you wargame.

Once you get a good grasp of some of the detail,try "Battles and Leaders",covers the entire war and written by the participants.You will definately get opinion in that one.

Oddball;
Every historian inserts their own beliefs into what they write.

Some are better at minimizing it influencing their research and writing than others.

McPherson's book isn't bad. I read it in college and I've read it two or three more times since.

Eric

David Eicher's "The Longest Night, A Military History of the Civil War " is the best that I have read. Shelby Foote is okay, he's entertaining and you'll read things in his books that you won't find anywhere else. But since he was a novelist and he didn't bother to footnote anything you can never be too sure why you don't find anyone else saying some of the things he says.

link

For specific campaigns, anything by Ed Bearss. Mr. Bearss has forgotten more about the Civil War than most people will ever know. He is also no nonsense about the War, perhaps being badly wounded in WW2 in the PTO drove the "romance of war" right out of him. He just recently finished the second volume of his history of the Battle of Petersburg (Ed is in his nineties, we were kind of sweating that one out) so that's now complete.

link

He is also the Historian Emeritus of the National Park Service and he is the person who found the wreckage of the ironclad Cairo.

Shelby Foote again. Exceptionally readable because the man was a novelist first, and an historian second. The dude could write.

Thanks for all the suggestions, very helpful indeed!

Cheers,
Jay

McPherson's Battle Cry is the best one volume history on the period.

Foote is the answer to your question.

After that I would recommend Nosworthy's books and the Savas Beatie Maps of Gettysburg/Antietam/Chickamauga/etc.

McPherson's book seemed very biased and slanted to me, almost approaching propaganda status. I mentioned this once before and was surprised at how many readers who found nothing wrong with it.

And before anyone tries to belittle my opinion by claiming I'm just a 'lost causer', I'm Canadian.

I'm personally rather fond of one not yet mentioned, "How the North Won the Civil War" by Hattaway. It does a very good job of breaking down the strategic thinking on both sides.

Two more books you might want to consider.

Peter J. Parish, The American Civil War, published in 1975, was often mentioned as the best single volume study of the ACW before McPherson's book vied for this title.

Vincent Esposito, The West Point Atlas of American Wars: Volume I, 1689-1900 was originally published in 1959 and then reprinted in 1995. The book has a format with a map on one page facing a page of text explaining the map. While it has some space on earlier and later American wars the vast bulk of the book is on the ACW. It is invaluable either by itself or used to illustrate the actions in another book on the war.

Be careful not to confuse this book (or the second volume that deals with WWI, WWII, and Korea – also well worth it) with a more recent very similar titled set of atlases edited by Thomas E Griess. The latter are a reworking of the earlier volumes and are not nearly as good as the original.

link

link

McPherson's book propaganda? Surely you jest. BTW toy can also get the Atlas that accompanied the Official Records, in any cases these were maps drawn by the participants, often while the war was going on. It does go better with the ORs though. You can get it cheap though (if you look around), mine was around 10 bucks.

Don Lowry, a member here, wrote a great multi-volume account of the last year of the war. Highly recommend. link

McPherson did not write propaganda, just an excellent account. The Time-Life series as mentioned is good.

I just finished reading "Lee's Lts" (again) and am again left with a sour taste. It is a rose tinted retelling of the war, soft on causes and events if they'd injury the confederate myths.

Shelby Foote was a great author, a so-so historian. Another writer who wore rose tinted glasses when discussing southern actions and events.

Good luck,

Dan

FWIW I've found McPherson's book (which I'm still reading) just what I needed for a general history of the war and its causes. I'm sure I'll end up reading Shelby Foote at some point, but have to admit that from my particular (European) perspective, I found Foote's somewhat dewy-eyed romanticism about the South's heroic resistance in the Ken Burns series more than a little irritating…
[Dons tin helmet, ducks down in trench]

Another vote for Esposito – great work for understanding the strategic structure of the war.

McPherson's book as propaganda, ya, or like I said earlier, a revisionist load of dung not worth the time to read.

My reasons listed above.

But he got good press because he said all the right things in his book to make a modern reviewer happy. PC for history.

John Keegan's " the American Civil War"

It keeps the politics to a minimum and places the emphasis on Military Strategy and how the how the war was actually carried out

link

Jowady: I had not realized Ed Bearss was still writing and still kicking. An amazing man. I will never forget him on a tour I took through the Gettysburg College summer session … tossing his swagger stick onto the ground for emphasis and describing the Union attack at Sayler's Creek. I do not say this lightly: An American treasure for those of us who appreciate history.That being said, Jay, I would suggest Foote's trilogy, but if you are like me, you will want to read detailed accounts of the battles, and there are several authors to recommend: Cozzens for the West; Rhea for the East and Priest for just plain old great reading of fascinating details.

Thanks again for all the fantastic help, guys!

So far I've bought 'The Longest Night' (Eicher) and John Keegan's book. The Eicher book in particular is likely to keep me going for a while. But I aim to work my way through most of your recommendations in the course of time – research being one of the pure joys of wargaming ;o)

Cheers,
Jay

I would second Cozzens' work, simply cant put down his books on Iuka&Corinth, Chickamauga and Chattanooga …very readable and informative

I would second Cozzens' work, simply cant put down his books on Iuka&Corinth, Chickamauga and Chattanooga …very readable and informative

Keegan is of my favorite historians but his civil war book is AWFUL. Fraught with numerous mistakes and badly edited.

I love listening to Foote's contributions to the Burn's series and feel sure he would have been great company over a slow drink on a Summer evening but he was a storyteller not a historian.

Like some others here I like McPherson as a general history but like any period you have to rack up your book count before you really get into the era. One book no matter how good or who wrote it will never get you to first base, let alone round it!

However, while I might agree that using modern lables for people, organisations and their views doesn't work, moral values are still moral values, as far as I'm concerned.

If everyone at the time agreed with slavery or using the descriptions of how black people were thought of that McPherson quotes, that would be one thing.

As they clearly didn't, it's not applying 20th Century values – they were already there in 19th Century. They might have got you shot or beaten senseless if you expressed them in the wrong place but they were there alright.

As they clearly didn't, it's not applying 20th Century values – they were already there in 19th Century. They might have got you shot or beaten senseless if you expressed them in the wrong place but they were there alright.

Indeed. Brings to mind the caning of Charles Sumner.

As for authors, I too like McPherson, as well as Foote, Catton, Cozzens, and of course Pfanz for Gettysburg. For nostalgia, Glenn Tucker's books are fun although they are rather dated.

Indeed. Brings to mind the caning of Charles Sumner.

Exactly what I had in mind! :o)