McPherson or Foote?

[Zoetermeer]

At the risk of starting a heated debate...

If you were going to read a comprehensive history of the Civil War, would you start with McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom or Foote's The Civil War? I have both and can't make up my mind. I realize that Shelby Foote is much longer, but that's not really a concern.

I'd really like a detailed history that is well-written and engaging (not a dull read), and includes detailed accounts of major battles. The military history is really what interests me, but I'm trying to get some context first...

[arsan]

Hi!

We are on the same boat!
Lately i'm having a strange interest on the ACW (i´m not sure why… )
So i made Amazon.com happy and get McPherson´s Battle Cry of Freedom a couple months ago and Foote’s trilogy 3 weeks ago.
I have finished McPherson’s and i have read about 200 pages of Footes first book.
From my experience, i think its probably better do it on the same order if you have nearly no idea of ACW like me.
So my answer to your question would be: read both, but McPhersosn first.

McPherson it's great to give you a general view of the social and political causes of the war, something Foote gives for known.
McPhersons first 1/3 of the book it´s set before the war and could be at times too detailed about party politics (specially for a non american like me) but its mostly very interesting and enlightening.
And you can always do some skipping with the most boring parts… But don´t think the book as a whole its dull. I think it's very readable.
About the war, McPerherson it's great giving you a general picture who merges very well the military, political and economics. The maps are very good but don´t expect too much details about battles.

About Footes, i´m enjoyng it a lot!
It’s an easier read, like a good novel, and it gives you much more details about battles and about general’s and leaders personalities. But i think you should know the background of the war to enjoy it fully.

So… in short: what you are looking for (more engaging, more battles...) it’s Foote, but if your knowledge on the ACW is little, you will enjoy it best reading first McPhersons. It will give you the "big picture" so you don't get lost on the details.
Hope it helps!
Arsan

[Ian Coote]

Hi,I would go Foote over McPearson.Not only does Foote give great accounts of all the major battles,but the smaller battles too.He also gets you right into all the cast of characters {and what a cast it is}.In my opinion one of the finest histories ever written.

[Zoetermeer]

Hi!
McPherson it's great to give you a general view of the social and political causes of the war, something Foote gives for known.
McPhersons first 1/3 of the book it´s set before the war and could be at times too detailed about party politics (specially for a non american like me) but its mostly very interesting and enlightening.

I've read the first 100 pages of McPherson and know what you're talking about...I have a pretty good understanding of the Civil War and the history of the actual conflict, but knew little about the political conditions that preceeded it. So McPherson's book is very interesting - but somehow I don't know if I like the fact that it takes him a few hundred pages to get to the actual war. Considering that it's a one-volume work, it makes me wonder how much detail he can devote to battles and the military historian's perspective, if any at all.

But I guess there's a surfeit of books out there about the war itself - not as many go into such detail about the causes and/or preconditions.

[ltc taplett]

Well, I'd say McPherson's book is an History Book and certainly not and certainly not a Military History Book.

Which doesn't mean that it's bad. Actually I found the book very interesting and I concur with Arsan on the fact that if you're not a specialist on this period you should start with this one to get a solid background (and I also concur on the fact that when you're not an american citizen yourself the political issues might sometimes seem kinda hard to fully get).

Then, if you want a military book, I guess there's much choice on the shelves

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

Hi!

Zoetermeer, sorry but I didn’t realized you were from USA
I supposed you were form Europe (your nick sounds like dutch to me ) and thought that you would need a lot of info about ACW before tackling with Foote.

Anyway, if you find the first part of MacPherson’s book good reading, you will love the rest.
The campaigns and main battles are treated very well. Of course it lacks some details, and doesn´t includes little skirmishes but i think it shines on depicting the flow of the war and merging the military, political and social aspects.

But as ltc taplett say its not Military history. A big battle can take less than 5pages... few but good.
Cheers

[Stonewall]

If you're looking for military histories, both books will fall short of satisfying you. You'd be better off looking for works that deal with specific armies. Lee's Lieutetnants is a 3-volume work published 70 years ago by Douglas Southall Freeman and its the preeminent history of the Army of Northern Virginia and the campaigns in the Eastern Theater of Operations. Its from the Confederate point of view as it tracks Lee and his commanders.

There other equally good books on other specific armies. I'd reccomment checking those out.

If the choice is between McPherson OR Foote, go with Foote.

[LMUBill]

Lee's Lieutetnants is a 3-volume work published 70 years ago by Douglas Southall Freeman and its the preeminent history of the Army of Northern Virginia and the campaigns in the Eastern Theater of Operations. Its from the Confederate point of view as it tracks Lee and his commanders.

It's also from the "Lost Cause" point of view as well. So don't be surprised if Lee walks on water at some point.

Still a good read, though.

[Zoetermeer]

It's also from the "Lost Cause" point of view as well. So don't be surprised if Lee walks on water at some point.

Still a good read, though.

Haha yes, I'm quite familiar with this...I just finished reading "General Lee: His Campaigns in Virginia" by Walter Taylor (his aide-de-camp). A textbook example of Lost Cause literature, but still a very good read.

It makes you wonder what Lee and Jackson, et al were really like. So much of the writing about them is partial/biased toward the Southern cause...

[Chris0827]

Foote easily. It's not even close.

[Stonewall]

Haha yes, I'm quite familiar with this...I just finished reading "General Lee: His Campaigns in Virginia" by Walter Taylor (his aide-de-camp). A textbook example of Lost Cause literature, but still a very good read.

It makes you wonder what Lee and Jackson, et al were really like. So much of the writing about them is partial/biased toward the Southern cause...

If you think about it, all accounts of what a general is like are going to be based on accounts from people who knew and experienced it. When talking about a general on a battlefield, who knows him better than his staff? With that in mind, what staff members would be "opposed" to the cause the general is fighting for? Its almost a necessary obstacle to overcome when reading biographies or histories of events and people in the age prior to the advent of mass media.

The Walter Taylor book is also quite excellent as a primary source.

Freeman also published the seminal biography on Lee. It can be found online [url=http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/home.html
]here.[/url] Well worth the 4 volume 2000+ pages of text.

Freeman certainly had a pro-Southern bias. I woudn't call him a "Lost Causer" though. His work is meticulously footnoted, which is one of the reasons he is considered by most as THE anthority on the subject of Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.

[bloodybucket]

Foote is outstanding, but trying to compare his three large volumes of historical narrative to McPherson's single volume overview is difficult.

I'm surprised that Bruce Catton isn't mentioned as a compromise, since his three volume centennial set is more of a narrative story (like Foote's) but the page count is quite a bit less.

[supergamelin]

Hi, I've got both.
Both are very good but different.
It depends upon what you're looking for. Mc Pherson gives a lot of background and starts well before the war. It's interesting for us non americans to understand the periode. It aso gives a lot of info about the economic and political issues.

Foote's book is much more focused on the military aspects and gives much more detailed batte account.

It may be a good idea to start with Mac Pherson first to have a good overview of the war then go with Foote to have more detailed accounts of the battles.....

[Cat Lord]

The McPherson is one of the best History book I have read. Quite a feat for such a complex conflict to be summarised in a readable and enjoyable single volume.

Cat

[PDH]

McPherson is an important read for the very fact that he does cover so much of the political and social elements that preceded the Civil War. Too often such factors end up forgotten or trivialized, when the reasons why leaders of both sides ended up so intransingent in 1860 needs to be explained.

At the risk of starting another debate, McPherson shows (in part) why the country was divided economically and culturally before the war took place, and why the problems of slavery and the reactions to this could lead to such divisions and the conflict itself.

Now Foote is a cracking good history, a narrative of the war that brings light to the players. Despite his Southern heritage, he also makes sure that the reader sees the foibles and strengths of those who participated.

They fill different niches.

[tagwyn]

I agree! Foote is the best. Tag

[Conhugeco]

McPherson is the better history.

Foote is the better story.

They are both well worth the read.

Dick

[Charleson]

Time-Life offers a stunning, illustrated version of Foote's monumental work. I have the 14 Volume 40th anniversary edition which is now out of print, however there's a more recent 5 volume illustrated edition available. I assume it contains the same photos, drawings, and battle maps of the 14 volume work, just with an increased page count per book. I highly recommend it if one can swing the $100+ price.

http://www.timelife.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=6665

[Ian Coote]

be carefull,the five volume set appears to only go as far as steele bayou,so its not the complete set.

[AndrewKurtz]

It may be a good idea to start with Mac Pherson first to have a good overview of the war then go with Foote to have more detailed accounts of the battles.....

I agree. And then, to get some more depth, I find Stephen Sears to be one of the most enjoyable authors when it comes to reading about individual battles/campaigns.

[Conhugeco]

I agree that Sears is a great read, that his books are always backed by solid research, and that he provides a fresh analysis to events. For an example of the latter, read his book on Chancellorsville. Hooker does not come off quite as badly as the "traditional" story would have us believe.

Dick

[Charleson]

be carefull,the five volume set appears to only go as far as steele bayou,so its not the complete set.

Aye, upon closer inspection that does look rather strange, thanks.

(Makes me glad I bought the complete anniversary set when I did).


I'd like to echo what others have mentioned about Foote capturing the personalities of the various generals very well. His style of trying to get into the commanders' heads and the choices they faced seems to compliment the unique focus AACW has on leaders.

[Ian Coote]

.I also have the 14 volume Foote set.Paid about $37.50 canadian per book,pricey but worth every penny.Its the kind of set that will show up on the Antique Roadshow a hundred years from now and be worth $100,000. SHELBY FOOTE,BORN JUNE 27TH 1916 GRENVILLE MISSISSIPPI,DIED JUNE 27TH 2005 MEMPHIS TENNESSEE.

[thewick]

McPherson is the better history.

Foote is the better story.

They are both well worth the read.

Dick

I agree with this statement. McPherson's work is the better history. Personally I don't think a person can properly understand a War if they don't know what caused it. Throughout the Civil War the political consequences of the battles fought often changed the course of the war. McPherson shed more light on the political battlefield, not just the war's battles.

But no one should ever only read on history on any subject, read as many as you can, Foote, McPherson, Nevins. Watch Ken Burns! Its all good stuff.

Or if you are like me read Howard Coffin and Robert Poirier and learn about the significant contribution of the troops from Vermont to the Union!

[Franciscus]

Well, I must share this with you guys. Yesterday in a FNAC store (an european disk/book/electronic chain for those of you who do not know it) in my city (Lisbon) I found Shelby Foote's trilogy, brand new in hardcover, for just 33,14 Euros (around $45) I just could not believe it and literally grab them and ran for the counter. It was way cheaper even than the paperbacks sold through Amazon that I was thinking of buying

Now I think that I have a fairly good ACW library - Foote's trilogy, Time-Life hardcover books, McPherson's atlas and even Longstreet's "From Manassas to Appomatttox"

[Alan_Bernardo]

To choose between McPherson and Foote depends on your own tastes. I'll take McPherson, because of his more scholarly approach. Foote is writing fiction, for the most part.

Currently I'm reading Porter Alexander's Personal Recollections. Though obviously biased in approach, Alexander's work is better than both McPherson and Foote.

Alan

[arsan]

Well, I must share this with you guys. Yesterday in a FNAC store (an european disk/book/electronic chain for those of you who do not know it) in my city (Lisbon) I found Shelby Foote's trilogy, brand new in hardcover, for just 33,14 Euros (around $45) I just could not believe it and literally grab them and ran for the counter. It was way cheaper even than the paperbacks sold through Amazon that I was thinking of buying

Now I think that I have a fairly good ACW library - Foote's trilogy, Time-Life hardcover books, McPherson's atlas and even Longstreet's "From Manassas to Appomatttox"

Now i envy and hate you !!! its not fair!!!

On Madrid Fnac you can only find a few history paperbacks on English, and mostly about "fashionable" themes (middle east, Islamism, spartans, you know... ) leure: leure:
I had to buy from amazon and just a paperback... i thought the hardcover costed 125 $ or so plus shipping...)

The shame is that i was on Lisbon's Fnac last autumn when on vacation... but then i wasn´t looking for books, just visiting the Chiado...
By the way, what a lovely city!!

Cheers!!

[Conhugeco]

To choose between McPherson and Foote depends on your own tastes. I'll take McPherson, because of his more scholarly approach. Foote is writing fiction, for the most part.

Currently I'm reading Porter Alexander's Personal Recollections. Though obviously biased in approach, Alexander's work is better than both McPherson and Foote.

Alan

Horace Porter's Campaigning with Grant, while sharing a similar bias, is another great read.

Dick

[Jabberwock]

Make Me a Map of the Valley is an excellent read if you can find a copy. It is the journal of Jedediah Hotchkiss (Jackson's topographer), edited by Prof. McDonald of SMU. The original journal was a primary source for Lee's Lieutenants.