Rating: 
Summary: An excellent book about the Civil War
Review: Shelby Foote presents the Civil War and the events of the time in a highly readable format resembling a novel rather than a history book. The inclusion of numerous private exchanges between officers and soldiers help to bring the characters to life. The book does an excellent job of mixing infomation on the battles, with a look at how event transpired from the perspectives of both the North and the South, and the social transformations and political maneuvering that was taking place in the background.The book begins with a strong background first of Lincoln, then of Davis, and proceeds to explain the state of the nnation early in 1861. Once the first shot at Sumter is described, however, the tone changes and the emphasis is more on the millitary campaigns. However, Foote continues to tie everything together by bringing the reader back to why the war was being fought from the perspectives of both sides. While not for everyone (the three volumes together are more than 3000 pages), these volumes provide an excellent source for a perspective of event during the war. The only downside is an insufficient number of battle maps which, at times, makes it hard to picture events as they unfolded during certain campaigns.
Rating:
Summary: The Single Greatest History Series I've ever read.
Review: There have been pleanty of reviews and kudos given to this series. They are entirely deserved. As a voracious reader of history for 30 years it was just unbelieveable. Before this series I wasn't particularly interested in the Civil War. These books and Ken Burns made it interesting. The greatest challenge of a historian is how do you sell something someone isn't interested. Foote does this by making the book a conversation. Its a conversation you won't walk away from. If there is any fault to the series it is that volume 2 & 3 tend to repeat certain info in the first two, (If I hear John Breckinridge Mustache compared to a Siclian Brigand one more time I'll go nuts.) this is of course unavoidable since you can't assume the people have read the previous two volumes. As far as faults go it is practically invisible, (See Breckinridge thing.) In my opinion on the subject of the Civil War there is no single item more worthy of purchase anywhere at any time.
Rating:
Summary: A great read
Review: The PBS series "The Civil War" and Tony Horwitz's book "Confederates In the Attic" opened the door to my Civil War interest, and Shelby Foote's first volume of his narrative clinched it. I've heard many who've criticized his narrative style and some inaccuracies in the history, but I believe Foote does what brings history to life, he weaves a story and makes the characters live. I enjoyed all parts of this first volume, but especially two sections. The first was the battle of Pea Ridge, which I had never heard of, yet was analyzed brilliantly. The second was the Peninsula Campaign; I couldn't put the book down reading about that part. Stonewall Jackson sleeping under a tree when he was needed most, the "best men of the Confederacy" being sacrificed in frontal counter-attacks, McClellan's dilemmas (he was often painted here and by others as over-cautious and a brilliant retreater, yet Foote makes us sympathetic to his problems too), and the emergence of Robert E. Lee and the subsequent retreat of the federal troops. There is so much more to read in this book, Sharpsburg, Shiloh, and also the political situations in both capitals. I thank Shelby Foote for bringing this era to life for me, and I am halfway through volume 3 and I have not been disappointed with any of this massive undertaking.
Rating:
Summary: A truly awesome iliad
Review: Do not be intimidated by the sheer size of these three volumes - Foote's writing style is very easy to digest. Though based wholly on fact (from thousands of memoirs, diaries, notes, documents, interviews, etc.), the story of the entire war is told almost like a fictional novel, though not to the degree of "Killer Angels", for instance. I found myself breezing through the pages, continuing to read so that I could find out what was going to happen next. The level of detail is astounding - though I thought I knew the war pretty well, I have a completely different (and far better) understanding of it now. Foote also does an excellent job in balancing the accounts of the North and the South, their good points and bad points. He also addresses the unbalanced perception that the Civil War was only fought in Virginia - it was not, with many battles large and small happening from Florida to New Mexico to the Bering Strait. If you want to really know the details of the military affairs and political underpinnings of the Civil War, get this series. You will not regret it!
Rating:
Summary: A stay-awake masterpiece
Review: I second other writers' praise; only to add my own small observation on the real genius of the book. It's not just a great story of the war, it's a great way to understand the war itself from a military-historical perspective. Foote manages to weave a basic useful observation into every aspect of the narrative, I think: In short, that story is about how, early in the war, the Union consistently divided its energies against a weaker foe, and lost; and how the Confederacy divided its energies against a stronger foe, and won. After 1863, the tactics began to reverse and the outcome changed: the Union began to concentrate its superior forces, and won; and the Confederacy concentrated its dwindling forces, and lost. This overarching story works to understand every CW event, and Foote doesn't let it become the explicit "thesis," but he does manage to make it stand out as a way to understand what happened, one which really made me say, "aha." Plus I couldn't put the book(s) down.
Rating:
Summary: The best historical work of the 20th Century!
Review: Shelby Foote's 3-volume history of the Civil War reads more like a sweeping novel than a broad history. The characters are all well-covered, as are the battle strategies and political crises facing both sides. The tension mounts with each new battle as Lincoln looks for generals who will actually fight and as Davis deals with the problems of fighting a broad-front war with few supplies and men. In nearly every battle waged, the South was both outgunned and outmanned. Yet the Confederacy managed to make this war last four years and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Foote does a remarkable job of clearly explaining how this is accomplished. The brilliance of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson is demonstrated in battle after battle, as is the blundering incompetence of most of their Union counterparts. Likewise, the dogged persistence of Ulysses Grant and the tenacity of Sherman in the Western theater are presented in strike contrast to their Confederate counterparts Bragg and Joe Johnston. Throughout this all we have the political infighting in Washington and in Richmond, the international intrigue as the Confederates seek foreign recognition and intervention, and the build-up of the industrial North to fight the war. And throughout the entire epic, we read the diaries and letters of the common soldiers who bore the brunt of fighting for a cause few of them understood. That Foote can completely depict all of these interwoven stories in only 2800 pages is a remarkable achievement in itself, but this set's greatest achievement is the prose through which the epic is presented. Foote's writing is simply head and shoulders above that of any other historian of the 20th Century (except maybe David McCullough). I have read that this work has been criticized because of Foote's Confederate sympathies and because of the lack of footnotes. Potential readers should not be scared off by such nonsensical charges. Foote does not so much sympathize with the South as he sympathizes with the underdog and can't help but wonder how they pull off so many miraculous coups in battle. Nor can he sit back and ignore that most of the Union's generals in the Eastern Theater were, at best, useless. However, Foote consistently gives credit where credit is due, most notably in praising Lee, Jackson, Forrest, Longstreet,Grant, Hancock, and Sherman while showing scorn for Joe Johnston, Braxton Bragg, Burnside, Hooker, and McClellan. And he shows tremendous respect for the abilities of President Lincoln. As for footnotes, this should be considered a narrarative, not an historical treatise. Foote does not treat this as a doctoral thesis, nor should the reader. This is, simply put, the best historical work produced by an American writer in the 20th Century.
Rating:
Summary: UNRIVALED AND LIKELY TO REMAIN THAT WAY
Review: I haven't actually finished the third volume, but this is truly a historian at his finest. He brings cold facts to life. An honest historian, but a great story teller. A word on perspective, although it matters little, he does not take sides because he recognizes that there are no longer sides: Written by a Southerner, so to the biased Northerner it may seem like it has a Southern bias, but to the reasonable person, it is clear that Foote is able to see what was worth preserving in the South, but also recognizes what was worst. In any case, this is an authorative history of the war and the Americans who fought in it.
Rating:
Summary: Sets the standard for narrative history
Review: Foote's magnum opus is the essential history of the Civil War. While it is long, the space is not wasted or unnecessary--it simply takes that many pages to present the events in adequate detail. Foote almost never makes any judgements on the events which occurred. He merely tells, in clear and artful prose, what happened. There are a few "what ifs," but he will not tell you whether Lee or Grant was a better general, or give his opinion on any of the other controversies about the war. Judgement calls and conclusions are left to the reader. If you're looking for a book to tell you what to think about the Civil War, this is not for you. But if you want to find out the events that occurred in order to decide for yourself, then you can't do any better. One of the best features of the work is its geographical evenhandedness. Most quick coverages of the war keep a fairly tight focus on the conflict in northern Virginia, with occasional peeks out west for major events such as the fall of Vicksburg. Foote gives the decisive events in the west equal weight to those in Virginia, and also gives detailed attention to the campaigns west of the Mississippi. Through it all, Foote does a masterful job of keeping the multiple threads of events clear. It is an art to tell multiple simultaneous stories without confusing, boring, or frustrating the reader, and Foote pulls off this difficult task with a skill that makes it appear almost effortless. Foote also includes maps with each battle, to help the reader visualize the conflicts.
Rating:
Summary: An Enduring Classic
Review: I originally read Volume 1 and its sequels about 9 years ago, my interest having being sparked by Mr. Foote's memorable appearance in the classic PBS series "The Civil War". My honest opinion back then was that the trilogy was a literary gem. Having just reread Volume 1, I hold this opinion even more strongly, jaded cynic though I am. The author combines a diligent and scholarly search for the truth--employing to this end, the methods of both the historian and novelist--with a majestic prose which elegantly and vividly brings back to life events and characters from "a world now gone to dust". The narrative paints a broad panorama of the American Civil War during 1861-1862, but I would like to comment on just one aspect of the work. Volume 1 introduces us to the two main protagonists, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, and their struggles to keep their respective nations intact. Now I have heard and read yappings that the narrative is slanted toward a pro-south point of view, and suspect that this ill-founded charge is due in part to Mr. Foote's temerity in putting Davis (throughout the trilogy, in fact) on equal footing with the now sainted Lincoln. Jefferson Davis will probably always remain the most controversial of American historical figures (along with Aaron Burr), owing to the ugly principles--namely, aristocracy and slavery--for which his Confederacy fought de facto. As Mr. Foote put it, Lincoln had "tarred" Davis by masterfully characterizing his idea of self-government as anathema to democracy and freedom. "The tar would never wear off", and to this day, Davis remains to many a villain of the first rank. However, Mr. Foote implicitly makes a compelling case that there is much to admire in Jefferson Davis, who, like Lincoln, personifies the great American dream of achievement through hard work and merit, rising, before the War, from backwater obscurity to the Mississippi planter class and high Federal office (although admittedly with his older brother's help). His simple, western background stands in stark contrast to that of the "cream" of Virginian society; as President of the Confederacy, he is painfully aware of the condescension of the Virginian elites, as they "had become accustomed to looking down their noses at what they called the middle-class atmosphere of official Richmond". Moreover, notwithstanding his renowned inflexibility in dealing with subordinates, Davis' public and private behavior was utterly beyond reproach. In short, if one reads this book while keeping a view of Lincoln and Davis as truly "the men of the hour" during the Civil War, albeit with their inevitable flaws, he or she will be rewarded with a memorable and enduring experience. A final note: the book is best suited for an energetic reader. Aside from the great length of the book, the prose, while representing the best the English language has to offer, does require some effort to master (at least it did for me). The rewards, however, are well-worth the reader's commitment.
Rating:
Summary: HOW to read this
Review: If you want to know weather you should read this or not, there are a lot of people who can review this book better than I. I'd like to tell you HOW to read this. I'm a slow but passionate reader, so when I start a book, it often consumes me until I finish. If you're that type, beware, you'll lose years off your life unless you have a plan. The books are massive and detailed and you'll want to follow all the details. I never had a good sense for just how long the war took. From Lincoln's election to the fall of the Confederacy took about 4 1/2 years. My suggestion is that you take that long to read the book. For one, you'll need the time to digest all that's happening. Two, if you're an all-consuming reader, you'll need a break once in a while. And last, but most important, you'll get a first-hand appreciation for just how long the war took. When you're finished, you'll look back on all the things that happened in your life while you've been reading and suddenly you'll begin to realize just how much of people's lives this war consumed. That happened to me, and it was a profound experience in my understanding of the war. It's just this sort of personal attachment to what transpired that the author brings out in his wonderful prose. Yes, others may spend more time on the social and political effects of the war, but this book lets you experience the war itself and allows the reader to frame those events to better understand how that war changed the course of our country forever.
|
