Is Shelby Foote's Civil War Narrative Accurate?

[Fifty]

I already know I'll like the writing style and whatnot, but is it considered sufficiently accurate to be The Thing I Read To Get A Basic History Of The Civil War?

Yes I know there are probably shorter basic histories by Shelby Foote is too awesome to pass up on.

 

[privatehudson]

I've read through all three volumes and didn't notice anything glaringly inaccurate in them. I've heard on other forums that there's one or two slight issues but they're generally considered pretty good. They are hard to use as a source however since Foote doesn't cite his own sources anywhere in the series.

 

[Serutan]

Yes (&#^%&*WE##$).

 

[citedon]

I have never read it, but plan to read it sometime soon. I understand that it has been favorably compared to Allan Nevins’s "Ordeal of the Union" which I have read and thoroughly enjoyed.

 

[Dachs]

Accurate enough for a narrative that's four decades old, but Foote LOEV Nathan Bedford Forrest and to a slightly lesser extent the entirety of the CSA - IIRC he claims that nothing whatsoever happened at Fort Pillow, for instance, and other such glossings-over. Reading McPherson and Eicher together (for the nonmilitary and military aspects of the war, respectively) seems like a better idea to me, though, especially if you want less fawning admiration for Southern generals and less fellating the alleged superior fighting qualities of the Confederate infantryman.

 

[privatehudson]

Accurate enough for a narrative that's four decades old, but Foote LOEV Nathan Bedford Forrest and to a slightly lesser extent the entirety of the CSA - IIRC he claims that nothing whatsoever happened at Fort Pillow, for instance, and other such glossings-over.

I think that in this case your memory is not serving you very well Dachs. He goes into 4 pages of discussion about the events at Fort Pillow and also talks about how the higher casualty rates amongst black soldiers suggests that they were deliberately targeted. He also talks about how how cries during the assault of "no quarter" may possibly have been linked to Forrest's earlier note which stated that "should my demand be refused, I cannot be responsible for the fate of your command".

On the other hand he does point out that Forrest tried to prevent unnecessary bloodshed and suggests that the Congressional investigation's report was almost certainly exaggerated. He points out that Stanton ordered Sherman to investigate the events with the instruction that "If our men have been murdered after capture, retaliation must be resorted to promptly" but Sherman made no recommendation to that affect. He suggests that this implies that the usually zealous Sherman didn't support the claims of the report and saw no basis for retaliation.

Foote certainly was fond of Forrest and the South in general but he certainly does not claim that nothing whatsoever happened at Fort Pillow.

Reading McPherson and Eicher together (for the nonmilitary and military aspects of the war, respectively) seems like a better idea to me, though, especially if you want less fawning admiration for Southern generals and less fellating the alleged superior fighting qualities of the Confederate infantryman.

I don't think I got the impression that Foote was as fawning as you make out, although some examples would be helpful. He's certainly not as in awe of Lee as the lost cause writers for example, and seems quite fond of Grant, especially during the western campaigns.

I agree that McPherson is a good source though, sadly I've never had the chance to read Eicher although I keep meaning to.

 

[Dachs]

Then I guess I'm mistaken, or conflating Foote with somebody else.

 

[privatehudson]

It happens, I had to check myself what he said about the events at Fort Pillow since its been nearly 3 years since I listened to the series on audiobook (48 hours a volume or thereabouts and three volumes kept me busy during many a long bus journey to work). Fortunately I've since bought all three in print so can access the details pretty easily.

 

[nonconformist]

On a similar vein, does anyone know Reveille in Washington?

 

[nokmirt]

Accurate enough for a narrative that's four decades old, but Foote LOEV Nathan Bedford Forrest and to a slightly lesser extent the entirety of the CSA - IIRC he claims that nothing whatsoever happened at Fort Pillow, for instance, and other such glossings-over. Reading McPherson and Eicher together (for the nonmilitary and military aspects of the war, respectively) seems like a better idea to me, though, especially if you want less fawning admiration for Southern generals and less fellating the alleged superior fighting qualities of the Confederate infantryman.

My favorite was Battle Cry of Freedom, it was the best volume on the Civil War I ever read. I did not read Shelby Footes narrative yet, but I saw him on the Ken Burns Civil War Documentary. He seemed like he knew what he was talking about, and he made the program interesting. I have to say that all in all Confederate generals were moreso put on a higher pedestal. I am a yankee and I admire them, my favorite is Lothario Armistead. Of course Jackson is up there, and Lee, they just had a charisma, which set them apart in my eyes. The Union had men like this too, Hancock, Chamberlain, and may I say George Armstrong Custer. The Union commanders in chief, men like McClellan, and Burnside, made so many errors and wasted precious time, and did not listen to reason. Politics in many cases dictated their decisions. If the Union had one man of brilliance at the top like a Lee, things would have turned out differently. The decisions of the commanding general outweigh the potential of good commanders down the chain of command. Individual intiative of lesser commanders cannot win campaigns. A decisive commander in chief of the army is needed for this, and for the longest time the Army of the Potomac had nobody close to filling this role. Until George Meade, sat like a snapping turtle in his defenses around Gettysburg. Meade was too over cautious and slow to move, if he had not have been, he could have harassed Lee all the way back to VA. Grant was the one to start giving Bobby Lee some real trouble, because he fought neverending and without pause, and politics were not directly considered. I wonder if Shermans Army was put on ships in Savannah, and transported to help Grant fight Lee if this would have ended the war earlier. I do think Shermans pyschology of warfare, certainly got the message across to the Southerners. They needed to feel that the Union could do anything to them, and there was nothing they were going to be able to do to stop it. These people are Americans and they have a tremendous will, it needed to be broken. I agree with Sherman. In fact I know his Great, Great Grandson, he is a dear friend of mine, and he even looks like Willian Tecumseh. His name is Rick Sherman. Any way just my thoughts Dachs.