/lit/ - Literature

It's worth reading if you want to immerse yourself in the ACW

It seems like a very ambitious project. I decided to buy it
>No one knows as well as I how marvelous the work is, no one sees as well as I do all its hidden beauties, no one knows as well as I too how beautifully it’s structured, the secret ties with the Iliad, the marvels hidden within iotas on every page, shimmering through every line...
>“I built a frame that will take all the strain I can place upon it. It is revolutionary in its simplicity. I adopt strict point-of-view; that is, the reader always has a definite standing-place from which he looks out. His point of view (3d person, of course) is that of Lincoln, Davis, Grant, Lee, etc— whoever happens to be at the storm-center of the current subject. This gives it a validity and a vitality that will be cumulative and intense. It is strictly chronological; there is no anticipation of events— so that, in a sense, a person might read it to find out ‘how it comes out.’ There is no anticipating the fall of Vicksburg, no pointing out along the way what the consequences of an action will be, unless the planner takes into account what they might be. I make no wise over-all comments except as they were made by people who were there; the events, whether battles or political maneuvers, are presented for their own sakes. … It sounds terribly simple, and it is. But the resulting heightening of the drama, the narrative drive, is really wonderful. The story has its climaxes and denouements, and they fell marvelously into place. Outlining it on the above basis, I was in a continuous state of wonder and excitement. It will be an American Iliad— I mean that.

>>22741011
I'm a yuropoor and I've been fascinated by the War of Northern Aggression for some time now. What are some other books on it? I'm reading RE Lee's Letters and Recollections right now.

>>22741142
Shelby Foote (middle) & Faulkner (right)

>>22741011
Was there a more based military action than Sherman’s march to the sea? Rhetorical question. Of course not

>>22741011
Thank you for a genuinely new and interesting book recommendation. Have never heard of this before

>>22741216
Proximity to Faulkner is good enough for me

I stay on /lit/ because you can get a gem recommendation maybe once a year. Worth it!

>>22741151
Lee is a fucking loser and charlatan - recommend letters and speeches of Lincoln (LOA editions) to cleanse your brain

>>22741221
What about Forrest's guerilla warfare?

>>22741221
His march through South Carolina was much more based and much more deserved than the march to the sea

>>22741221
Napoleon crossing the frozen berezina on his retreat from Russia

>>22741011
Worth buying at least.
Looks like a good set.

>>22741011

>>22741011
I've read the first book.

Yeah it's good. Foote did alot of research and is actually writer (and a decent one) so it's less dry than most modern histories by professors. He even talks about the naval side of things on the Mississippi River, and covers both sides, starting before the war with Lincoln's and Davis' lives

Iirc part of the reason he did it was he heard stories of the war from veterans in Mississippi when he was growing up and wanted to cover the war and how relations were prior to reconstruction. If you like the Civil War I definetly recommend it.

>>22741011
On my Christmas wishlist this year

>>22741011
Absolutely, it's full of information and well written. I was continually mesmerized by his earnesty, it mythologizes and magnifies each person without becoming saccharine or inaccurate.

It has diminished a lot of the other history I've read since then by highlighting the disconnect between the author and subject. I'd kill to have scholarly viable histories written a century after any historical conflict with his level of passion.

>>22741011
The modern Tacitus.

>>22742814
Based

>>22741011
" "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back," said Foote. If the Confederacy ever had come close to winning on the battlefield, "the North simply would have brought that other arm out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that war." - Shelby Foote

>>22743836
INTERVIEWER: Had you been alive during the War, would you have fought for the Confederates?

FOOTE: No doubt about it. What’s more, I would fight for the Confederacy today if the circumstances were similar. There’s a great deal of misunderstanding about the Confederacy, the Confederate flag, slavery, the whole thing.

The political correctness of today is no way to look at the middle of the nineteenth century. The Confederates fought for some substantially good things. States’ Rights is not just a theoretical excuse for oppressing people. You have to understand that the raggedy Confederate soldier who owned no slaves and probably couldn’t even read the Constitution, let alone understand it, when he was captured by Union soldiers and asked, “What are you fighting for?” replied, “I’m fighting because you’re down here.” So I certainly would have fought to keep people from invading my native state.

>>22741011
got it cheap at a used bookstore. almost done with the first book, it's awesome.

>>22743836
The Confederacy could have marched on Washington unopposed in the first few months of the war, but like typical right wingers they just wanted to be left alone, so they didn't. Remember this when we win. No matter how you compare to your enemy, if you're fighting to defend your way of life and they're convinced that they're fighting for all that is good in the world and that history is on their side, you can only win by destroying them completely, otherwise they'll just keep coming back.

>>22741964
>Lee is a fucking loser and charlatan - recommend letters and speeches of Lincoln (LOA editions) to cleanse your brain
Kill yourself. Hate from Australia

>>22741011
More good books on the American Civil War>>22721322

>>22744619
you’re not even American, why do you care lmao
>>22741011
it’s wonderfully written. most of the history still holds up, but Foote falls prey to the Lost Cause meme/myth and undersells the role that slavery played before, during, and after the war — >>22743848
is a perfect example of this. the average confederate soldier didn’t own slaves but they very well knew they were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery. historiography on the civil war’s made some serious, excellent strides on this since Foote’s day. that being said it’s still great. worth reading

>>22744646
What do you think of Battle Cry of Freedom?

>>22744646
Only Americans can read history or what? Fuck off, cunt.

>>22744653
The Democrat version of the story. Amplifies black soldiers 10x and ignores better subjects.

>>22741973
He doesn't know what that is

>>22742045
>>22742721
How well do you need to know the war to appreciate it?

>>22741011
>Worth reading
Yes it is.

>>22744653
not as well-written as Foote (he’s a solid writer, good stylist) but it’s on better historical ground imo. glides over details but what can you expect from a one-volume history
>>22744655
by all means read what you want. it’s just very funny to be this passionate when you have no dog in the fight whatsoever. I get that you see the confederacy as a model or a noble cause (idk why they got their asses thrashed) but it’s still funny

>>22744644
>Bruce Catton
very based

>>22744749
Is another recommended kino?

>>22744755
All the people with a “dog in the fight” are dead, mate.

>>22741011
The war of southern aggression and succession?

>>22741221
Captain John Brown

>>22744755
Not him but come on, even his enemies praised Lee. His letters are public ffs, you're being unnecessarily harsh and dismissive.

>>22744889
my comment was more about Foote’s history as a whole, not necessarily his military history alone. but even then; Robert E. Lee was by all accounts a kind man, and many thought (and still think!) he’s a brilliant tactician, but I think the real story’s more complicated; Lee might have been a great tactician but a poor general. He didn’t trust the officers under his command to carry out his orders effectively and often refused to delegate, making his army slow and unresponsive when given actionable intelligence. Lee preferred to give orders directly but a lot of the time his orders weren’t super clear. (Ewell shelling Meade instead of a conjoined infantry and artillery attack, for example, because Ewell couldn’t interpret Lee’s intent.)
>picrel
a good book that touches on this. ultimately Lee was always doomed, just as Foote >>22743836 says here. grant could make more bullets, grow more food, ship more supplies.

>>22744791
>, mate.
this is bait but imagining the Australian accent makes me laugh. I just don’t get it. I’m from the South, my family fought in the civil war, I’ve been to Fort Sumter, and I still don’t care about it as much as you do. guess I’ve never run into an ameriboo on here before.

>>22744646
Slavery was the power keg but the war was about state autonomy in general. Pretending it was an epic battle to overthrow the institution of slavery is mythologizing.

>>22744928
>WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE?!
NTA but your retarded troon logic is always unwelcome and outs you as a retard with nothing worthy to say about anything.

>>22744670
As it is a narrative history of the war, you don't need to know much to appreciate it as he talks about who the people are he refers to and there are maps with lines for army movement to show where stuff happened
X general was from x class at west point. And he of course talks about the big names
>Lee
>Grant
>Davis
>Lincoln
>Jackson
>Sherman
If you have a base knowledge of what the war was/when it happened you'll be fine

>>22744047
>The Confederacy could have marched on Washington unopposed in the first few months of the wa
The only reason they even might have been able to do that is because the military and political elite of the north were predominantly southern sympathizers. It's no coincidence that the south's fortunes turned so dramatically and abruptly once McClellan was removed from the army of the potomac. The south wouldn't have even had arms to fight with if Buchanan had not allowed them to seize federal arsenals before Lincoln's inauguration

>>22744928
He only "cares" because it's another tragic chud "cause" to moan about and wank over.

>>22741151
Try out Lincoln Takes Command. 1940 pub date. Argues that he wanted the war.

Anyone read Grant or Sherman’s memoirs? There is a Library of America box set with both of them I’d like. LOA also has like a ~$150 4 or 5 book box set on the War of Southern Belligerence I’d like. Around the holidays I’ll probably treat myself to one of the LOA box sets, maybe one of the above

>>22744646
OP listen to this anon. It's beautifully written and captures the romanticized notions of the conflict from the Confederates perspective, but it's not the most comprehensive and balanced history.
Foote also is the main guy interviewed in the Ken Burns doc. He's very good there as well.

>>22745117
>oh yeah? oh yeah? well well you’re a tranny so there!
Chuds are so fucking funny sometimes

>>22746821
>unironically using “chud”
Way to prove him right lmao

>>22745110
>the war was about state autonomy in general
yes, state autonomy to do what. you’re almost there. Lincoln probably didn’t see the war as being about slavery — he mainly saw it as a war to preserve the union — but it’s ridiculous to pretend that the war wasn’t about slavery, or that the south thought it wasn’t about slavery. state autonomy, yes, the autonomy to continue slavery. the entire reason the south seceded was because they didn’t want the north to abolish slavery.

>>22746838
I’m not >>22744928, sorry anon :/

>>22744644
>>22721322
>None Died in Vain by Robert Leckie
Great writer.

>>22747109
I like his prose in Delivered from Evil (about World War II). I plan on checking this book out some time.

>>22744786
Yes it is.

>>22746841
>yes, state autonomy to do what
Maintain regional control over issues that have a deep impact on the lives of its citizens seperate from the centralized control of outsiders in Washington (again, I'm not denying that the powder keg that set off the Civil War was (the economic impact of) eliminating slavery--I'm saying Americans tend to mythologize their history and a heroic battle to end bondage comes off a lot better than federal encroachment undermining state economic interests and the establishment of a centralized federal power).
>Lincoln probably didn’t see the war as being about slavery — he mainly saw it as a war to preserve the union
Correct and if you weren't simply regurgitating things you've heard elsewhere you'd notice that the North's idea of such a union was centralized federal control with an enhanced executive office which, being only 4 score years away from the revolution, sounded a lot like minimizing the representative power of Southern states and creating a king.
>but it’s ridiculous to pretend that the war wasn’t about slavery
For the vast majority of historical actors participating in the war it wasn't. Again, centralized federal power at the expense of state autonomy, a greatly enhanced executive office (the presidency was originally supposed to be largely symbolic), powder keg.
>SLAVERY!
You're not even close, anon. I guess WWI was fought because everyone in Europe really loved Franz Ferdinand, lol.

>>22746821
This >>22746838.
>>22746846
Don't care. You're in the same boat.

Based Sherman

>>22741011
Thanks for the great civil war thread bros. Happy thanksgiving!

>>22741011
There were 3 civil wars?

>>22749770
4
English
American
Spanish
Guns n Roses

>>22749774