Civil War book?
- Thread starter Hawkbiz
- Start date
This is light reading to get started but the Time-Life series on the Civil War is an excellent introduction. You can get the whole set for next to nothing on Ebay.
It was not until I read several books on the subject that this series came out. But once I started reading it I found it was the overview I'd needed to provide context for deeper reading.
Oh and, don't worry about running out of books. Last I knew, about twenty years ago, there had been a book published ABOUT the Civil War for just about everyday since the war ended.
It was not until I read several books on the subject that this series came out. But once I started reading it I found it was the overview I'd needed to provide context for deeper reading.
Oh and, don't worry about running out of books. Last I knew, about twenty years ago, there had been a book published ABOUT the Civil War for just about everyday since the war ended.
This is light reading to get started but the Time-Life series on the Civil War is an excellent introduction. You can get the whole set for next to nothing on Ebay.
It was not until I read several books on the subject that this series came out. But once I started reading it I found it was the overview I'd needed to provide context for deeper reading.
Oh and, don't worry about running out of books. Last I knew, about twenty years ago, there had been a book published ABOUT the Civil War for just about everyday since the war ended.
That's my concern. I don't want to read all the books on the Civil War, just the best ones!
Thanks for the Time Life suggestion. Any idea if it's available on nook or kindle?
Crisis of Fear by Steven Channing will explain how we got into that mess.
Embattled Courage by Gerald Linderman will show you what a mess it was.
Embattled Courage by Gerald Linderman will show you what a mess it was.
Are you open to reading books that dissent from the court historians, so you may form your own opinion ? The victors of war always get to write history and with our publik edukashun system, indoctrinate its children by edict. My choices would be The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked, both by Thomas DiLorenzo.
Here's another good read by the former president of the American Historical Association, Kenneth Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War.
I've no idea. Oh, and I meant to mention, "The Memoirs of U.S. Grant" and, "The Wartime Papers of Robert E. Lee" go well together and again, you can get them for nothing on Ebay.
Yes, books written by an economist/pseudo-historian and driven by agenda are going to give a clear picture of what happened. "Court Historians"???
The truth isn't for everyone. Maybe you should read more from plagiarist, Doris Kearns Goodwin. Gulp.Yes, books written by an economist/pseudo-historian and driven by agenda are going to give a clear picture of what happened. "Court Historians"???
That's pretty accurate. But I'm doing my best to give the OP a shot at reading it.
By offering the same ole same ole? DiLorenzo has a PH.D in Economics for sure. No small feat when the dept heads are all Keynesians. Researching is just reading.
Court historians are people who are approved by the Establishment. They receive grant money to achieve pre-determined ends.
Yup. By offering the "same ole same ole" history. Not revised versions.
I have offered plenty of facts in the last few days. Start a thread on it and I'll happily debate you.
If you open your eyes, you can the lies all around you. Just look at Ukraine for example. The lies are egregious. That's probably why Hillary et al wish to have a 'gatekeeper for the internet'. The views of the Mundanes must be monolithic.
I have no idea what you just said, but I'm pretty sure the Ukraine wasn't involved in the Civil War. And I'm certain that "Hillary" and the "internet" weren't around back then.
Isn't that how history should work? If your history is changing with every book, that ought to raise questions.
There are many things not being reported today by the media. The example was Ukraine and calling Putin the aggressor, as if he had plans to attack 28 nations surrounding him. The point is the Establishment lies to the masses. Whether it's WMD's in Iraq or the Gulf of Tonkin, the suckers loved getting lied to like every school girl who is told by their boyfriends that they love them. They just want to believe.
There you go. Drop everything I said and read these. If they had been around when I started they'd have saved me some time.
I was never as impressed with "The Killer Angels" as everyone else seems to have been. I never figured out just why; perhaps it had a sameness to so many other books about famous battles.
I would suggest "Andersonville" by MacKinlay Kantor. It was published in 1955 and won the Pulitzer Prize.
The flag problem is a red herring. Are you suggesting it's the loser who writes history? Absolutely ridiculous.
Who's ideals won out in the end? I don't mean slavery of course, I mean who didn't get the chance to secede and form their own nation?
For a rainbow supporter, you seem very adept at only seeing one color of it at a time.
In Natural's world, the South should have just taken it on the chin and suffered from the Mafia like tariffs placed on them by the North. You see, he despises freedom. Like the Hotel California song, "You can come but never leave."
In February 1850 President Taylor had held a stormy conference with southern leaders who threatened secession. He told them that if necessary to enforce the laws, he personally would lead the Army. Persons "taken in rebellion against the Union, he would hang ... with less reluctance than he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico." He never wavered. (Yeah, I quoted wiki because I was too lazy to open my own books)
Zach was as Southern by the way as one gets.
Then I looked up another Southern Gentleman, Thomas Jefferson:
"I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the Union into two or more parts."
And if modern secessionists and nullifiers are not yet convinced, I offer a piece written in 2012. And please note where it came from. I offer no left wing jibber jabber, but a voice from your own conservative ranks. Research the author and his other articles. You will like this guy. Notice what he had to say about your "right" to secede:
http://bearingarms.com/a-reply-to-secessionists-and-nullifiers/
Zach was as Southern by the way as one gets.
Then I looked up another Southern Gentleman, Thomas Jefferson:
"I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the Union into two or more parts."
And if modern secessionists and nullifiers are not yet convinced, I offer a piece written in 2012. And please note where it came from.
I offer no left wing jibber jabber, but a voice from your own conservative ranks. Research the author and his other articles. You will like this guy. Notice what he had to say about your "right" to secede:http://bearingarms.com/a-reply-to-secessionists-and-nullifiers/
I'm pretty sure the rainbow ideals won. Honestly, what would do you live in? Did anyone lynch you when you were black?
I suggest Clarence L. Ver Steeg's The Formative Years, 1607-1763 as quick read on colonial america to give you some background on where we started and how that eventually led up to the War of Succession.
Yep. Shelby Foote's trilogy is excellent, he writes with a poet's style. He is very nearly as good as Bruce Catton.
Catton's first book in his trilogy, "The Coming Fury," tells you everything you need to know about events leading up to the national bloodbath. While most historians focus on the 1860 Republican convention that nominated Abraham Lincoln (a great story), Catton also describes the 1860 Democratic convention in Charleston. Probably the worst place the Democrats could hold a convention in that year of a tinderbox. Poor Stephen Douglas was a good man but he didn't have a chance.
Taylor was a Whig, which was dominated by Henry Clay, a plantation owner and mentor to Lincoln. Then, as now, there is/ was a power that sits behind the throne. Taylor never took a public position on the Wilmot Proviso.In February 1850 President Taylor had held a stormy conference with southern leaders who threatened secession. He told them that if necessary to enforce the laws, he personally would lead the Army. Persons "taken in rebellion against the Union, he would hang ... with less reluctance than he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico." He never wavered. (Yeah, I quoted wiki because I was too lazy to open my own books)
Zach was as Southern by the way as one gets.
Then I looked up another Southern Gentleman, Thomas Jefferson:
"I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the Union into two or more parts."
And if modern secessionists and nullifiers are not yet convinced, I offer a piece written in 2012. And please note where it came from.
http://bearingarms.com/a-reply-to-secessionists-and-nullifiers/
I also looked up Jefferson. He said to James Madison, "We should be determined...to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government...in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness."
Abe Lincoln: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit." 1848
"For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse, provided only that the seceding States would re-enter the Union...Away with the pretense on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave." Quarterly Review (London), 1862
The other thing is, I'm not a conservative, nor a liberal. Human Events had gone statist years ago. Most of their columnists are full blown neocons (i.e., lovers of big gov).
You have to let your critical thinking skills take over for a minute. The 13 British colonies revolted and seceded from King George. Why would they enter into an agreement (Constitution) suppressing their ability to secede in the future? They wouldn't of course. The States were sovereign before entering into a union. They had to ratify the Constitution. There were clauses in the ratification of The Constitution put in place for Virginia, New York and Rhode Island that allowed them to withdraw from the Union should the new Union become too oppressive. Since it is a document of co-equality, it extended to all signers.
Lincoln chose to consolidate power, much like others in his time. This was a decade in which Piedmont would forge Lombardy, Parma, Venetia, and the various Italian states into a single Italy. Prussia would unite the various German lands (other than Austria and its holdings) into Germany. Political centralization was occurring in Japan as well. The War of Northern Aggression was a power grab and nothing more.
Here is what Tom Woods had to say about Jarrett Stepman:In February 1850 President Taylor had held a stormy conference with southern leaders who threatened secession. He told them that if necessary to enforce the laws, he personally would lead the Army. Persons "taken in rebellion against the Union, he would hang ... with less reluctance than he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico." He never wavered. (Yeah, I quoted wiki because I was too lazy to open my own books)
Zach was as Southern by the way as one gets.
Then I looked up another Southern Gentleman, Thomas Jefferson:
"I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the Union into two or more parts."
And if modern secessionists and nullifiers are not yet convinced, I offer a piece written in 2012. And please note where it came from.
http://bearingarms.com/a-reply-to-secessionists-and-nullifiers/
Meanwhile, Stepman never actually offers an argument showing us that nullification and secession are unconstitutional. He quotes a few people who opposed it. He seems to think a few quotations add up to an argument. There is no argument in his article, anywhere.
And who is Jarrett Stepman, exactly? Apart from being a writer for Human Events, which we already knew, his bio tells us only that young Jarrett “is a graduate of UC Davis, where he studied Political Science.”
Jarrett was a good student, it would seem. No unapproved thoughts entered that head of his. The state structure approved of by all the moderns and all his professors, he approves of as well.
Stepman lazily and without imagination simply accepts the logic of the modern state, according to which society must be organized with a single, irresistible authority at the center. The idea that constituent parts could have prior liberties of their own that they might assert against the center is anathema not just to Stepman but to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and (with a few noble exceptions) the whole slate of modern political philosophers from Thomas Hobbes to Karl Marx. Stepman, like these thinkers, simply takes the unity and indivisibility of the state for granted. They and their horrific “one and indivisible” nonsense, meanwhile, gave birth to the single most destructive institution in human history, with the twentieth century as an especially grisly Exhibit A.
If we dare to entertain the possibility that there may be models for organizing society other than the Hobbesian one in which all power originates from the center, and the periphery has only those rights the center graciously grants – why, we must be enemies of “America” and the “conservative movement.” Well, if by “America” you mean a centralized imperium whose government operates without real limits, and if by the “conservative movement” you mean a group of careerists who get rich by sending out fundraising letters promising “limited government,” then yes, we are indeed enemies of those things.Unknown to Stepman is the humane, Althusian alternative to the modern state. (So as not to give poor Jarrett a heart attack, I withhold from discussion the radical Rothbardian alternative.) I discuss Althusian decentralism here. No, Stepman reflexively takes the central idea of modern Western political thought, shared by all major thinkers, makes it his own, and persuades himself that he’s cheeky and original, a real fighter against the establishment. He is in fact as conventional as they come.
The doctrines of nullification and secession led to a bloody civil war, Stepman tells us. Again, our author’s inability to entertain a thought other than what he read in some textbook somewhere impairs his reasoning. The idea of decentralism did not lead to a bloody civil war. The doctrine of centralization, the un-American doctrine of the one-and-indivisible Union – the doctrine, in other words, of the modern state – led to a bloody civil war. So blinded is Stepman by his unthinking acceptance of the premises of modern political thought that he cannot even perceive the most obvious facts.
Note well: the secession of the Soviet republics did not lead to a bloody civil war. The secession of Slovenia did not lead to a bloody civil war. The secession of Norway from Sweden did not lead to a bloody civil war. There is nothing about secession in and of itself that need involve violence, as long as we are dealing with civilized people who understand that the best way to deal with political downsizing might not be to slaughter the people involved.
Stepman goes on to note that the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which spelled out the doctrine of nullification (Stepman doesn’t mention the Richmond ratification convention of 1788), were “outright rejected by ten states, unmentioned by four others and met with suspicion in Virginia of all places.”
Now why do you suppose Stepman doesn’t mention that little tidbit? Why do you suppose he won’t tell you that the people he’s citing for his case cheered the imprisonment of newspaper editors? Either he doesn’t know this, which I strongly suspect, or he doesn’t want you to know.I wish Stepman had at least bothered to read my book. Of the states that disapproved of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, all but one of them objected because they approved of the Sedition Act and incarcerating critics of John Adams, and they didn’t want states to be able to protect their citizens against these outrages.
As for Virginia itself, Stepman couldn’t have read the discussion in the Virginia General Assembly over the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, or he would have discovered that whatever alleged “suspicion” of nullification in Virginia he remembers reading about somewhere did not in fact exist. The only real point of contention was over the phrase “unconstitutional, and not law, but utterly null, void, and of no force or effect” to describe the Alien and Sedition Acts. John Taylor believed the words following “unconstitutional” were superfluous, since everyone knew that an unconstitutional law was no law, and obviously void and of no force or effect. That was the big debate.
And before ten years had passed, the northern states themselves – the ones who were so outraged over nullification in 1798 – were appealing to what became known as the Principles of ’98. Actions speak louder than words.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/11/23/the-establishment-hates-nullification/
You guys that are being typically condescending towards Nat are having difficulty refuting or debating his statements (many that he backs-up with direct quotes and reference).
It's pretty amazing how people will allow themselves to blindly trust the one institution that has been responsible for most of the crimes and misery on civilized people- Government.
I also chuckle when people use terms like "revisionist history." Believe it or not, some people read, study and actually learn things that are not always emphasized by the public school system. It's like people are afraid to find out that they have been betrayed or lied to. That's actually not strange at all. Imagine if your mother, or father, on their death bed, before they took their last breath said to you "You were adopted." That sorta wrecks your entire past. Most people would simply refuse to accept it because the truth is too painful.
By the way, Shelby Foote's books were my favorites. Foote was a southerner, so be careful! Haha!
It's pretty amazing how people will allow themselves to blindly trust the one institution that has been responsible for most of the crimes and misery on civilized people- Government.
I also chuckle when people use terms like "revisionist history." Believe it or not, some people read, study and actually learn things that are not always emphasized by the public school system. It's like people are afraid to find out that they have been betrayed or lied to. That's actually not strange at all. Imagine if your mother, or father, on their death bed, before they took their last breath said to you "You were adopted." That sorta wrecks your entire past. Most people would simply refuse to accept it because the truth is too painful.
By the way, Shelby Foote's books were my favorites. Foote was a southerner, so be careful! Haha!
No presidential speech comes close to Lincoln's second inaugural.
''Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish.
"And the war came."
''Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish.
"And the war came."
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
