I used to respect Shelby Foote...

[SlickWilhelm]

I grew up reading military history, and have been reading about WWI, WWII and the Napoleonic era for about 30 years.

For some reason, I never was interested in reading about American history. So it was not until I saw Ken Burns' "The Civil War" on PBS that I became interested in reading about the American Civil War. I thought Shelby Foote's contributions to that documentary were fascinating, and very informative.

So fast-forward about ten years, when I purchased "Forge of Freedom" from here and decided to read about the Civil War at the same time. I did some research and the consensus was that James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" and Shelby Foote's "The Civil War: a Narrative" were the two best works with which to educate myself.

I thought McPherson's was a great read, and was really looking forward to Foote's massive three-volume tome.

But after getting through all of Vol. 1, and half-way through Vol. 2, I just couldn't take it any more. Now let me add first that I read a great deal, and even managed to stomach "Mein Kampf", if for no other reason that I knew Hitler was a nutjob before I started reading it.

But the guy(Foote), for all his writing skill and fantastic storytelling ability, is so obviously biased that I lost interest. It started reading more like propaganda than factual storytelling.

Either I'm totally missing something, or Foote believed that all Southern generals were fine, honorable gentlemen defending their country from the "invaders" from the north... while the majority if not all of the northern generals were either incompetent boobs or scheming, ambitious opportunists.

Honestly, for the life of me I can't understand how such a biased account of the war could be so universally praised. In Vol.2 near the beginning, when describing the Federals being kicked out of Galveston....he used the word "decontaminated" to describe Texas being free of Northern soldiers. I read that, and thought "Decontaminated? Wow".

Oh well, I moved onto Stephen Sears' book on Chancellorsville, and am finding him to be much more even-handed in his treatment of both sides.

I would be interested to hear other people's view of Foote's account, especially from those of you from the warmer regions of the USA.

P.S. I am seriously interested in a civil(if you'll excuse the pun) discussion, and don't mean to start a flame war.

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

all Southern generals were fine, honorable gentlemen defending their country from the "invaders" from the north... while the majority if not all of the northern generals were either incompetent boobs or scheming, ambitious opportunists.

Foote tells it like it is. Only a Yankee would disagree![:'(]
But yes, I find he has a slight slant.

[paullus99]

While I do see a slight bias towards the Southern perspective, I doubt you'll find a more authoritative resource on the war as a whole. I believe you get a better sense of how the South really thought about fighting the war & why.

And, unfortunately, he's right that quite a few Northern Generals were scheming opportunists & plain bad soliders - otherwise, the North should have beaten the South by the middle of 1862 - with McClellan's Pennisula Campaign. Most of the top Southern Generals were professional soliders & graduates of West Point & VMI. In the North, you had a perponderance of civilian volunteers & politicians/soldiers - not the best way to fight a war.

It took until 1864 to have the cream of crop rise to the top in the North - combined with a massive advantage in manpower & resources, it was only a matter of time at that point before the South collapsed.

[JudgeDredd]

I thoroughly enjoyed Battle Cry of Freedome. Sheldy's just wasn't in my radar

[Erik Rutins]

Foote's bias is slight, IMHO. I think you'd be well served by picking it back up and reading it through all the way. If you read his own notes, he admits that he struggled with some bias, but I think on the whole he overcame it.

[Obsolete]

Very hard to avoid bias when you have humans doing the writing of history.

This is perhaps the biggest reason I don't watch the History channel anymore. 

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

Foote believed that all Southern generals were...defending their country from the "invaders" from the north...

It makes more sense if you think of Southerners as an ethnic group, like the Irish or some other national minority that live(d) in the shadow of what they see as an oppressor. I know that such a suggestion will strike some of our readers as a bit more than ironic (given the South's slave-based economy), but that was their perception. Despite a common language, religion and ancestry, they simply hadn't bought into the idea of an alliegance to a national government that would supersede that to their clan, their people.

[Titanwarrior89]

I second that[:)] I enjoyed reading him.

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

all Southern generals were fine, honorable gentlemen defending their country from the "invaders" from the north... while the majority if not all of the northern generals were either incompetent boobs or scheming, ambitious opportunists.

Foote tells it like it is. Only a Yankee would disagree![:'(]
But yes, I find he has a slight slant.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

Foote believed that all Southern generals were...defending their country from the "invaders" from the north...

It makes more sense if you think of Southerners as an ethnic group, like the Irish or some other national minority that live(d) in the shadow of what they see as an oppressor. I know that such a suggestion will strike some of our readers as a bit more than ironic (given the South's slave-based economy), but that was their perception. Despite a common language, religion and ancestry, they simply hadn't bought into the idea of an alliegance to a national government that would supersede that to their clan, their people.

How, exactly, were the Southerners an "oppressed minority"?

Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States.
Of the first 15, 9 were from the South, and the 2 immediately preceding Lincoln, while from the North, were both strongly pro-Southern Democrats. One former President was actually elected to the Confederate House of Representatives. In addition, both the United States Senate and the House of Representatives were dominated by long-serving lawmakers from the South.

So you want us to believe the leaders of the government were suppressing their own "people"?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

How, exactly, were the Southerners an "oppressed minority"?

I didn't state that they were an oppressed minority; I stated that they believed that they were.

So you want us to believe the leaders of the government were suppressing their own "people"?

The broad majority of Southerners believed that Lincoln and the Republicans were indeed attempting to deprive them of their life, liberty and property. The North invaded the South. What other proof did the Southerners need?

BTW, I'm not particularly in touch with my feminine side this evening, so I can't get terribly emotional about this stuff. My ability to empathize with folks with whom I might otherwise disagree, however, is as sharp as ever. [;)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[sabre1]

War of Northen Agression. Damn Yankees!

Shelby Foote is OUTSTANDING.

Damn "Liberal" Yankees.

[;)]

[JWW]

Prince of Eckmuhl is right.  One must realize that it took the South nearly a century to recover from the effects of the war, regardless of the causes.  And I'm not Southern apologist and have no sympathy for those who are.  But growing up in the South in the 60s, I was immersed in a culture that has many of the elements that Prince of E suggests.

If you want to balance it out, read Bruce Catton's Civil War trilogy or his history of the Army of the Potomac.  I think he is a better writer than Foote, a brilliant writer, but his perspective is biased slightly toward the North in my opinion.  

[hgilmer3]

Being a Northerner who has grown up in the South, I can tell you the Civil War is still recent history/memory for many.  One day I'll post one of the conversations they have on my other forum I spend time on that is made up of Alabama people who mostly come together for football but very frequently go off topic on anything and everything.  It can be a very fascinating insight into the mindset some still carry.

I have no fight in the argument as I am the grandson of immigrants and to my knowledge no close family members participated in the Civil War.  We did have a saber from the Civil War but no one could ever explain how the family owned it.  Or maybe it was from another country.  It's gone now.  Probably stolen.

[parusski]

Hmm, I think you are missing a LOT.

I only have a few things to point out about Foote's bias. Foote treats Robert E. Lee's disastrous debut in Western Virinia harshly. Lee was a laughable failure at that stage of the war and Foote says so. Jefferson Davis - from my multiple readings/listening to The Civil War, I find Foote is more critical of Davis than any other personality of the war(except Benjamin Butler maybe). He was brutal in his portrayal of the Confederate president.

It is also worth considering how Foote portrayed General Grant. Overall he is fair and complimentary about the man. He shows Grant understanding the need to spill blood while hating the bloodshed-even being nauseated by blood. Foote is also fair when it comes to Grants drinking. He makes a point that no one ever really saw Grant intoxicated.

We must also look at how Foote presents Lincoln. Throughout Lincoln is shown to be crafty, wise, calculating, intelligent and resolute. Lincoln's skill in dealing with his difficult cabinet and a meddling congress is showcased by Foote.

No need to point out that Foote attempts to downplay the Fort Pillow massacre. Contemporary newspaper accounts from both southern and northern papers stated that the forts garrison never surrendered, the inference being the black Union soldiers died in combat. The reports from that horrible slaughter have always been muddled, no two are in agreement. So Foote, being a southerner, does no injustice here.

Well, nothing I write will change the mind of someone already committed to an idea. But I just wanted to give my 1/2 cents worth.

[JWW]

You know, growing up in the South as a white boy in the 60s was quite fascinating, to say the least.  I recall having two epiphanies at about age 12 or so.  One was the realization that blacks were being terribly mistreated.  This was before my school system integrated, at the height of the civil rights movement.  I remember the moment, at a Sunday school outing and a kid used the n-word, and our Sunday school teacher said that was a bad word to use, and some of the kids argued with him.  But I didn't, and it made me think.  It made me think about things profoundly for the first time in my life.  Funny, but at almost the same time I developed a great love for Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia and the Civil War.  That might seem paradoxical, and I know it is, but it is part of growing up in the South during that period.  And I did not really see the conflict between the two at the time. Now I do see it, but it doesn't matter to me.  It is just who I am and what I am part of. Years later I learned that my great-great-grandfather from Alabama fought for the CSA as a cavalry officer in the West.  And that a cousin died on Cemetery Ridge on the second day of Gettysburg and another was wounded at Antietam.  My g-g-grandfather also owned slaves.  I am not ashamed of that or proud of it.  It just was.  But I am proud of his service.  Paradoxes all.  

[KG Erwin]

If you want a Southern bias in your Civil War history readings, then go no further than Douglas Southall Freeman's "Lee's Lieutenants". On the flipside, you have Bruce Catton's three-volume history. It's no big deal, as the facts are available -- it's only in the interpretation that biases may or may not show through.

If one is interested in the American Civil War, the Official Histories (all 100-plus volumes) are available. I have a few of them -- the quality of writing varies greatly, but there are a few objective views.

As far as objective views by a participant are concerned, I highly recommend E. P. Alexander's "Military Memoirs of a Confederate".

After all this, it strikes me as odd that a reader would take offense at bias being exhibited by a history writer. It has happened throughout written history, so the late Mr. Foote shouldn't be singled out as a notable exception to the general rule.

[SlickWilhelm]

ORIGINAL: parusski

Hmm, I think you are missing a LOT.

I only have a few things to point out about Foote's bias. Foote treats Robert E. Lee's disastrous debut in Western Virinia harshly. Lee was a laughable failure at that stage of the war and Foote says so. Jefferson Davis - from my multiple readings/listening to The Civil War, I find Foote is more critical of Davis than any other personality of the war(except Benjamin Butler maybe). He was brutal in his portrayal of the Confederate president.

It is also worth considering how Foote portrayed General Grant. Overall he is fair and complimentary about the man. He shows Grant understanding the need to spill blood while hating the bloodshed-even being nauseated by blood. Foote is also fair when it comes to Grants drinking. He makes a point that no one ever really saw Grant intoxicated.

We must also look at how Foote presents Lincoln. Throughout Lincoln is shown to be crafty, wise, calculating, intelligent and resolute. Lincoln's skill in dealing with his difficult cabinet and a meddling congress is showcased by Foote.

No need to point out that Foote attempts to downplay the Fort Pillow massacre. Contemporary newspaper accounts from both southern and northern papers stated that the forts garrison never surrendered, the inference being the black Union soldiers died in combat. The reports from that horrible slaughter have always been muddled, no two are in agreement. So Foote, being a southerner, does no injustice here.

Well, nothing I write will change the mind of someone already committed to an idea. But I just wanted to give my 1/2 cents worth.

Thank you, Parusski. You are correct, and I did not mean to imply that Foote is totally biased. As you point out, he was fair in his treatment of some of the characters in the narrative. I just felt that in some other respects he was not fair, in the way that I'm unused to reading in a historical document.

As Prince of Eckmuhl points out, the irony of Foote almost completely ignoring slavery in his narrative is juxtaposed with his frequent mentioning that the South was fighting against a government that was threatening to deprive them of their life, liberty and property.

As far as balancing Foote's perspective with Bruce Catton's works, I'm almost afraid to read Catton's works, because I don't want to read Northern propaganda any more than I do Southern. I am merely interested in a balanced, fair account of the war, showing both sides with as much insight and "truth" as possible, uncolored by bias. That's why I started this thread in the first place. I had so much hope for Foote's narrative, but was turned off by his colorization of the facts.

[Gil R.]

I've not read Foote or McPherson, to my regret, though I've read a good number of other Civil War books. (When creating Civil War games one needs highly detailed works on tactics, weaponry, fortifications, logistics, etc.) I can certainly vouch for Sears, who does excellent work.

If you want to avoid a southern bias, there's always Russel H. Beatie's Army of the Potomac series -- unbiased because THERE ARE NO SOUTHERNERS!!! I've recently read vol. 3, which goes from March to early May 1862, and find it to be outstanding but deeply flawed history. His goal is to write about the AOP, especially its command structure and that structure's interaction with the politicians, and as a result the southerners are mere props who are only seen when someone can take a shot at them. This can at times make for some dramatic reading: I knew absolutely nothing about 1st Kernstown, so as I was reading there was rising drama ("I wonder where those rebels are hiding? Ooh, watch out! They might be over there!"). But it's still odd to read about a good-sized battle, like Williamsburg, and be told next to nothing about what the Confederates were doing.

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

ORIGINAL: parusski


As far as balancing Foote's perspective with Bruce Catton's works, I'm almost afraid to read Catton's works, because I don't want to read Northern propaganda any more than I do Southern. I am merely interested in a balanced, fair account of the war, showing both sides with as much insight and "truth" as possible, uncolored by bias. That's why I started this thread in the first place. I had so much hope for Foote's narrative, but was turned off by his colorization of the facts.

Perhaps you are just mistaking perspective for bias, and reading histories with different perspectives might actually enhance your understanding of the war.

[Dennistoun]

My bad.