I’m about 160 pages in and while it’s certainly an old-school approach to history that focuses on military, diplomatic and political developments rather than social or economic issues, overall it’s an informative and objective look at the war.
I’m about 160 pages in and while it’s certainly an old-school approach to history that focuses on military, diplomatic and political developments rather than social or economic issues, overall it’s an informative and objective look at the war.
Welcome to /r/ShermanPosting!
As a reminder, this meme sub is about the American Civil War. We're not here to insult southerners or the American South, but rather to have a laugh at the failed Confederate insurrection and those that chose to represent it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Shelby is not a Lost Causer. He’s just very militaristic and unidimensional in his analysis of the war, so the Confederate Generals end up looking a lot better than they probably should. He also pays a lot of respect to Grant and Sherman.
A lot of old historians like Catton suffer from this, although I wouldn’t call Shelby a historian.
Uhhh, you may want to read his interviews with Tony Horwitz before you go that far.
He is rarely full on Lost Cause, but he does lean heavy towards the heroic mythology around Lee
Gotta be honest, and downvote me all you’d like, the “lost cause” stuff in footes books are heavily exaggerated.
I’m re listening to the audio book right now, besides the occasional glazing of Forrest, it’s mainly military history.
The only argument I can see is the stuff he chooses to omit, like more stories of the USCT, and Frederick Douglas. Which for a trilogy that’s over 3,000 pages, is a little surprising.
But I’m sorry, to suggest that Foote is some Bible thumping racist that thinks slavery was awesome is just silly. Most of the lost cause claims come from people that haven’t read the trilogy at all.
Yeah that all sounds about right to me.
I was a bit concerned when I saw that Foote opened with a fairly sympathetic biographical sketch of Jeff Davis - but I later realized that he was going to structure the story by going back and forth between Davis and Lincoln, and on balance everything seems objective enough.
As you say, the only major sins seem to be those of omission.
I don’t think it’s a hundred percent one way or a hundred percent another way. The criticism is levied, because he edges more one way than the other, and because the work itself is highly influential thanks to being extremely popular.
There’s also the chapter in Confederates in the Attic, and his statements in the Ken Burns Civil War documentary, which was also insanely popular, and which Foote (and his perspective framing of the war as a tragic failure to compromise leading to an even more tragic war of brother against brother, as opposed to a war to defend slavery) dominated, as he was featured more than any other individual contributor.
It is these latter two things which lead to the charge of his being an apologist. Which is not the same thing as a slavering ideologue, but which is still worthy of censure.
EDIT: getting downvoted for the above take in r/ShermanPosting of all places is wild.
Ok keep going. 130 pages is nothing.
I think it’s like 3% of the whole set