The War Between the States which one would you suggest ?
Thanks to the recent attempts by the American taliban to destroy history I have had a number of friends ask. I can't narrow it down since I have read so many and each are kinda directed at a theater or a principle. I'm kinda stumped one this one.
I am going to recommend that they find the Ken Burns series and watch those if possible.

Depends on what you are after. I suspect you're asking for something to look at politics, causes, etc. i found Allen Guelzo's Fateful Lightning very good at looking broadly at the war.

If you're just getting your feet wet, I enjoyed Bruce Canton's The Civil War. First read it in high school for UIL and it gives a pretty broad, if shallow, history of the period.

Thanks guys
I'm gonna recommend Their Tattered Flags by our old Prexy. It is well written from and reflects our point of view. Also recommend Cantons's book.
Read em both many moons ago and enjoyed them both.

Absolutely, I was just warning OA76 that it would be a "Civil War" history and not a "WBTS" history and he might not like all of McPherson's POV, especially regarding slavery and Lincoln.

Tattered Flags is a good one but it is a history of the Confederacy not the entire war.

If you want a newer one on the Confederacy try William Davis' A Government of our Own

BTW, it is Bruce Catton not Canton and he did not write a single volume history of the entie war unless you count the picture history form American Heritage. He did a three volume that was quite good and a single volume that is sort of the compliment to Vandiver's book , you are recommending, about the Union called This Hallowed Ground but it covers the fighting in a little more in-depth than Tattered Flags. A similar treatment of those two books by one author is Gary Gallagher's The Confederate War and the Union War that speak to the motivation of both sides quite well.

The Original AG 76 said:

---

The War Between the States which one would you suggest ?
Thanks to the recent attempts by the American taliban to destroy history I have had a number of friends ask. I can't narrow it down since I have read so many and each are kinda directed at a theater or a principle. I'm kinda stumped one this one.
I am going to recommend that they find the Ken Burns series and watch those if possible.

---

That's not dramatic at all...

BQ78 said:

---

BTW, it is Bruce Catton not Canton and he did not write a single volume history of the entie war unless you count the picture history form American Heritage. He did a three volume that was quite good and a single volume that is sort of the compliment to Vandiver's book , you are recommending, about the Union called This Hallowed Ground but it covers the fighting in a little more in-depth than Tattered Flags. A similar treatment of those two books by one author is Gary Gallagher's The Confederate War and the Union War that speak to the motivation of both sides quite well.

---

This is the Catton one I recommended.
https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-American-Heritage-Books/dp/0618001875/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1502972044&sr=1-1&keywords=bruce+catton

You won't find a solitary smoking gun as the catalyst for the war. Fascinating era with an abundance of material available. McPherson is cited and quoted by many. Some of the historic fictions are also good to obtain infantry soldier's POV.

OA76:

That is a modern reprint of the American Heritage Picture History without the pictures (IMO the best part). It has excellent writing, is a quick read but not as detailed as some of the other tomes mentioned in this thread.

Catton was a great writer who grew up sitting at the feet of the veterans in his Michigan hometown listening to their stories of the war. Other than his three volume history of the war (The coming Fury, Terrible Swift Sword and Never Call Retreat) and this book you posted, he didn't write the Confederate perspective much. He wrote from the Union perspective (in an objective way). A contemporary counterpoint to Catton may be found in Douglas Southall Freeman. When reading Catton and Freeman as a teenager, I always was sad when the books ended and wanted more.

Catton's three volume history is my favorite and my go-to reference for what it is worth. Easy read and worth the time. But I picked something else because of the 1 volume requirement.

Saying TWBTS was caused by slavery and slavery alone is as laughable as saying that WWII was caused by German-Jewish relations. There's much more to the story than that.
You're effectively saying that only one aspect is ever the cause for something. We only went to the moon because slavery wasn't illegal there.
We only went into WWII because the Japanese attacked us, when we put economic sanctions on the Japanese because America enslaved asian immigrants in the 1800s. Americans only declared independence from England because slavery wasn't as common there. We only disagreed with the Soviets because they didn't enslave blacks.

claym711 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

claym711 said:

---

You won't find a solitary smoking gun as the catalyst for the war. Fascinating era with an abundance of material available. McPherson is cited and quoted by many. Some of the historic fictions are also good to obtain infantry soldier's POV.

---

Decades of historical analysis and forests worth of dead trees laugh at this post.

---

You've been absolutely eviscerated on this and many other points, wherin you call for 'civility', yet here you are doubling down on stupid with incivility.

---

I know you think every reply you make is "eviscerating." I'm simply stating fact. You won't find a serious history of the war written in the last 50-60 years that doesn't admit slavery is the ultimate, primary cause of the war. Nothing you've said can challenge that consensus.

Deutscher_Aggie1 said:

---

Saying TWBTS was caused by slavery and slavery alone is as laughable as saying that WWII was caused by German-Jewish relations. There's much more to the story than that.
You're effectively saying that only one aspect is ever the cause for something. We only went to the moon because slavery wasn't illegal there.
We only went into WWII because the Japanese attacked us, when we put economic sanctions on the Japanese because America enslaved asian immigrants in the 1800s. Americans only declared independence from England because slavery wasn't as common there. We only disagreed with the Soviets because they didn't enslave blacks.

---

Slavery is the ultimate cause. There's no getting around it. Any economic argument you make goes back to the existence and promotion of slavery in the South. States rights goes back to slavery. This isn't some super secret thing. The newspapers and writers and politicians of the South proudly defended and promoted slavery and white supremacy as their causes.

He raised it preserve the union and defend federal territory. The Southern states seceded (partially disolving the Union) because of slavery. I think you are severely underestimating, or maybe just ignoring, the scholarship on this issue.

claym711 said:

---

Repeat it as often as you want. It doesn't change he fact that Lincoln did not raise an army (illegally), or send it to wage war on the South to end slavery.

---

You can keep harping on Lincoln as much as you like, you can ignore the platform and beliefs of the Republican Party in 1860 as much as you like, and you can ignore the obviously belligerent actions of the Southern states as much as you like. The evidence is absolutely clear that there is no secession and no war without slavery as the catalyst. As the long-term and proximate causes of the conflict.

You're trying to ignore the entire period from 1775 until April 1861 and you can't do that. You're establishing an arbitrary requirement that the Union forces fight for absolute abolition in order to say they were fighting over the issue of slavery and that is not accurate. From the beginning one of the central arguments for the Union was that slavery was not granted absolute recognition in federal territories and that the government could and should eliminate slavery in those territories. The debate over immediate vs gradual abolition took place over several years before the majority of people recognized that slavery could not be allowed to survive after the war.

Oh, and it was not illegal for Lincoln to call for volunteers and to exercise his powers as Commander in Chief.

Dr. Watson said:

---

claym711 said:

---

Repeat it as often as you want. It doesn't change he fact that Lincoln did not raise an army (illegally), or send it to wage war on the South to end slavery.

---

You can keep harping on Lincoln as much as you like, you can ignore the platform and beliefs of the Republican Party in 1860 as much as you like, and you can ignore the obviously belligerent actions of the Southern states as much as you like. The evidence is absolutely clear that there is no secession and no war without slavery as the catalyst. As the long-term and proximate causes of the conflict.

You're trying to ignore the entire period from 1775 until April 1861 and you can't do that. You're establishing an arbitrary requirement that the Union forces fight for absolute abolition in order to say they were fighting over the issue of slavery and that is not accurate. From the beginning one of the central arguments for the Union was that slavery was not granted absolute recognition in federal territories and that the government could and should eliminate slavery in those territories. The debate over immediate vs gradual abolition took place over several years before the majority of people recognized that slavery could not be allowed to survive after the war.

Oh, and it was not illegal for Lincoln to call for volunteers and to exercise his powers as Commander in Chief.

---

Secession did not preclude war, and war would not have existed if the North had not invaded the South. The North did not invade the South, even in small part, to eliminate slavery.

Lincoln had no authority to raise an army. They had to pass section 332 of the Insurection Act in a July of 1861, after Lincoln did so, to make it legal.

How many times does it have to be explained to you: an unarmed resupply ship is not an invasion. To say nothing of the martial moves by Southerners hoping for a war. And yes, the Commander-in-Chief has the power to organize the forces necessary to eliminate an insurrection.

Another transparent attempt to deflect. Boring

I haven't read McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom", but I thought his "Ordeal by Fire" was outstanding.

Which is better?

claym711 said:

---

You won't find a solitary smoking gun as the catalyst for the war. Fascinating era with an abundance of material available. McPherson is cited and quoted by many. Some of the historic fictions are also good to obtain infantry soldier's POV.

---

Well there is always slavery since that is the reason for secession.

Both are good but McPherson is newer and the writing is better I think. Ordeal is more like a textbook to me.

BQ78 said:

---

Both are good but McPherson is newer and the writing is better I think. Ordeal is more like a textbook to me.

---

Ordeal is intended as a textbook. I've seen Battle Cry used as a textbook, but it is intended for the interested lay audience. The writing in Battle Cry flows better because he isn't bound by some of the conventions of textbooks. Both are very good options.