ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm
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 I just felt that in some other respects he was not fair, in the way that I'm unused to reading in a historical document.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.
History is like memory, it produces, rather than reproduces. Historians, especially those of the 20th century, have huge amounts of material about the past. They must select content information for their books. But who determines the guidelines of choice, the basis of the selection and it's interpretation?? In the end it is the historian's value system and philosophy of life that determines content and interpretation. Therefore, in spite of objectivity goals, personal belief ALWAYS colors content
As others have pointed, out any book dealing with history will have some level of bias. History is my number one reading topic, has been for 30 years. I have never read a historical account of anything that was bias free. The nature of man does not allow seeing any topic through black and white lenses. To get the best perspective of the past one must read multiple authors, with the knowledge that each will relate things differently. I, as a staunch conservative, learned long ago to get past the nearly unbearable liberal slant in books I read. Modern historians(since the 60's) tend to lean left. That does not make their writings any less valid, or enjoyable. Nor does it make them any less readable. A man learns to look past it and see the bigger picture.
.
[/center]
