Battle Cry of Freedom. Thorough explanation of the various causes and issues that led up to the war, and the complete history as well. A very good read as well.

It's been a while, but I believe it ends with the war itself.

I realize this fails certain of your criteria, but I would suggest watching, if you haven't seen it, Ken Burns' The Civil War. It is very well done, will take less time than it would to read 500 pages, gives you Shelby Foote, is a general history, is about the US Civil War, covers both political and military history, has a good run-up to the Civil War , and is nonfiction. It does not, as far I recall, deal with Reconstruction.

Battle Cry of Freedom has everything you are looking for. It's longer than 500 pages, but it really doesn't take that long to read. I looked for something along the lines of your bleg for sometime, and that was the closest I came (that was both comprehensive but readable to the uninitiated).

Another vote for Battle Cry of Freedom. It's outstanding.

Do serious historians even write large summations in under 500 pages? McPherson's is heads and shoulders above any other encompassing work, its worth the extra pages if doable.

You mean the War of Northern Aggression, right?

Just skim Battle Cry of Freedom if you don't want to read the whole book. Skip entirely the chapters about Clara Barton and stuff like that.

As a supplemental work, may I suggest this atlas. Seeing the movements of the troops at actual battles provides a more accurate visual picture of both the tactical and strategic decisions than reading mere prose.

The Gold Standard of Civil War history is Shelby Foote's trilogy: The Civil War: A Narrative

Authoritative and exhaustive is an understatement.

An American Illiad by Charles P Roland is an excellent general history. It's used by James I. Robertson in his introductory Civil War history class at Virginia Tech.

The Shelby Foote set is, I would say, the definitive narrative history of the conflict. It covers military, social and political angles and is quite readable. I've been using it as my airplane reading material for a few months now, and it sure makes the flights go faster.

It is, however, a set that you will have to read more than once to get a complete understanding of the war.

I agree with the recommendations for "The Battle Cry of Freedom." The 900 pages is so well written that it is easier to get throught than shorter, but less able histories. If you really have to be brief, try "The Roads They Took" by David Phillips. It's a map book but the annotations contain useful information.

The list begins and ends with Shelby Foote.

It is THE definitive history book on the Civil War, and one of the best on any topic. Don't even think about picking up anything else until you've read Foote's amazing anthology.

Well, Sasha could always rent "The Birth of a Nation". But I'll have to get back to him on the bias question.

I should add that while Battle Cry is thorough, elegantly written, and effective, it is also colorless, because McPherson necessarily had to sacrifice detail for scope. If you want something exciting, you'll have to pick stuff that focuses on individual campaigns or battles--The Killer Angels and that kind of thing. McPherson is a serious academic primer, not a very thrilling narrative.

Wow. I had no plans to read a Civil War book but with so many Volokh visitors praising Battle Cry, I'm going to put it on my reading list!

I think I can say with some confidence that there is no book which covers what you want. You'll need at least 3 books, one for the run-up to the war, one for the war itself, one for Reconstruction. My recommendations:

1. As Steve Lubet says, William Freehling's The Road to Disunion is the best for the lead in. The first volume is better than the second, but both are good.

You can, btw, get a pretty good sense of the the period from 1854-61 just by reading a collection of Lincoln's speeches. The American Library has a two volume collection which includes the entire Lincoln-Douglas debates. Since even the best authors can hardly compare with Lincoln, you might give that some thought, though obviously you miss a lot of modern scholarship by that approach.

2. Like so many others, there's no substitute for MacPherson on the war in its entirety. It isn't close.

3. For Reconstruction, the best is Eric Foner's work of the same name.

600 pages is not enough space to cover the development of the slavery crisis, the course of the war (both political and military), andReconstruction.

G. Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is about the Spanish Civil War and is an excellent book from a soldier-eye point of view. It definitely explains where a lot of his experience and influences originated.

Let me second Sasha's request for a short book. I don't want details so much as perspective. Of course that can be subjective, so give me two with different perspectives. I want to know things like, was the Civil War really all about slavery, or were there economic causes? What was the quality of leadership both at the military and political level? Why didn't the defeated South wage a post war guerrilla campaign against the occupiers? Iraq and Vietnam certainly seems to have done that successfully. Was Lincoln really a great leader? Why didn't the South run a terror campaign against northern cities? How did the weapon technology differ on both sides? How did each side treat their POWs? Did the North win the war with superior tactics, or just on greater resources?

I'll add to the recommendations for Jay Winik's book, "April 1865."

I don't know of ANY book that fits all your criteria. However, I would strongly recommend the first volume in William Freehling's "The Road to Disunion" series (Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854). It's longer than you want (about 650 pages) and just covers the run-up and not the entire war, but it's absolutely fantastic with what it handles.

I teach US history at a "well-known university". For what it's worth:

With your criteria in mind, you can't do better than reading the two books from the Harlan-Davidson American History series. John Niven's Coming of the Civil War (0-88295-861-5); and Brook Simpson's "America's Civil War" (0-88295-929-8).

The two together run about 400 pages (combined), and give you the historiography to a greater extent than other comparable books. You may not be overly interested in this, but at least this series lets you know where you will find the landmines.

As much as I hate to give the self-satisfied jack-a** the publicity, the book to read on Reconstruction is still Foner's. His "Short History" probably fits your criteria.

I recommend The Crisis of the American Republic: A History of the Civil War and Reconstruction Era (St. Martin's Press Series in U.S. History) (Paperback)by Allen C. Guelzo (Author). It is short, readable, and explores the military and political angles.

Jeff Hummel's "Freeing the Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" meets all of your requirements. It has the added benefits of:

1. Hummel is both an economist and a historian, so he gets the economics of the Civil War right.

2. Hummel is a libertarian, so he doesn't fall for the natural nationalistic biases of most historians.

3. Hummel distinguishes the issues of why the South seceded from why the North refused to allow them to peacefully secede.

4. Hummel's book has been widely reviewed by major historians in the field, all wildly positive.

5. Hummel is an excellent and compelling writer.

6. Each of Hummel's chapters contains an academic appendix. So those that just want the substance without the documentation can skip the appendices, while those interested in the details of scholarship can spend hours marveling at the detailed cites and erudite discussions of various Civil War issues that command the attentions of historians and economists.

Re: Wilentz's "Rise": I was very disturbed that he had so little to say about political parties. How do you write about Jackson and Van Buren without doing the "institutional" history of the Democratic Party?

Just an observation.

Interesting that no one here has mentioned Bruce Canton. Back in the day before Foote got famous on PBS, he was considered the god standard for his "Centenial History of the Civil War" trilogy. They are a bit shorter than Foote's triology. I would reccomend them highly. Also, Ed Bearss', River of Lost Opportunities — The Civil War on the James River, is very good and covers a good portion of the fighting in Virginia.

"The Cypresses Believe in God" - actually about the Spanish Civil War, and a novel, and not the entire history, but what a book!

Good going! This violates the first, second, fifth, and eighth criteria set forth in the initial post.

I vote for North Against South: The American Iliad 1848-1877, by Ludwell H. Johnson (Professor Emeritus of History at the College of William and Mary). It's a little over 300 pages.

For a reasonably-good overview and contextualization, The section on the War between the States in Churchill's "History of the English-Speaking Peoples" is very good. It's about 1/3 of "The Great Democracies"--the 4th volume in the series.

I don't understand the arbitrary page-limit: someone untutored in the Civil War but apparently eager to catch up, and thoughtful about how to do so, owes it to himself to devote the time it would take to read Shelby Foote — a beautifully written, moving, and definitive work. But if your goal is concision, skip everything and read Lincoln's Second Inaugural.

Does anyone have a (readable) book that focuses on Reconstruction. That's an incredibly interesting period of our country, especially for lawyers. Yet is is definitely overlooked.

Hoosier and I both suggested Eric Foner's Reconstruction.

Additional plug for The Killer Angels...Although not within the parameters.

You may want to try "The Civil War." It is the companion text to Ken Burns' series. I believe it was written by Geoffrey Ward. It's illustrated and about 3-400 pages long. The photos are great and it has several of the battlefield maps that I love.

I haven't yet seen mention of Russell Weigley's A Great Civil War. It meets most of your criteria, and it's pretty good, although not in McPherson's class.

1.

It should be written by a serious historian. (But it doesn't have to be academic -- if you think The Civil War for Dummies or The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Civil War are good, feel free to recommend them.)
2.

It should be short, say under 500 pages. (This rules out, say, Shelby Foote's three-volume work or McPherson's 950-page Battle Cry of Freedom, no matter how good they are.)
3.

It should be a general history, not focused on one particular issue like Goodwin's Team of Rivals, a naval history, a photographic history, a history of the Civil War as it relates to Texas, etc.
4.

It should tell a historical narrative, as opposed to, say, a reference guide, 101 trivia facts about the Civil War, or the like.
5.

It should be about the U.S. Civil War!
6.

It should cover both the political and military history of the Civil War.
7.

It should have good coverage of the runup to the Civil War, and preferably should also have good coverage of Reconstruction.
8.

It should be non-fiction, not a novel or alternative ("what-if") history.

anything else?

Jestak,

I found Weigley's book disappointing - at best mediocre, and not at all up to his usual standards.

500 pages is not enouigh for so important and complex an event as the American Civil War--which is why I'd recommend
Battle Cry, at least: but it seemed to me that it was much shorter than that! It was so well written. Anything by Catton I view with warm affection. His Illustrated History fo the Civil War, pub'd by American Heritage, is absolutey wonderful. Foote is also outstanding.

Pratt is an unjustly forgotten author, a superb writer who also produced a wonderful volume on cryptography, Secret &Urgent, as well as those delightful Incomplete Enchanter novels with another erudite soul, L.Sprague de Camp.

I'm late to the game, but another vote for Battle Cry of Freedom, even if it doesn't fit the parameters. Sorry. But I'm really writing to second the recommendation of David M. Potter's The Impending Crisis for the pre-War period (1848-61). By orders of magnitude, the finest book covering the period. A gem.

Just to complicate things: If I were to go beyond my (brilliant) suggestion above, and read only ONE monograph in addition to the general surveys, it would be "The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans" by Charles Royster.

I taught Civil War and Reconstruction as a junior-level course last semester (for the first time, yikes!).

I so wished after all was said and done that I had used MacPherson. I used Ken Burns as the basis for the war portion ("We watch videos! Take my class!"), but made the rookie mistake of trying to use the Burns/Ward/Burns reader's companion to the series for the actual reading portion. Bite the bullet and do the extra reading!

Love him or hate him, for Reconstruction it's Foner.

I'm not a civil war buff, but a few friends I passed this on to said, given your criterion that this book was for you:

Jeff Hummel's book, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War

"Great Courses" sells Gary Gallagher's lectures on DVD. No need to rely on the Ken Burns series. Not that Burns is no good. But he made a documentary, and thus went with what he could SHOW. Since the cameras were in Northern Virginia, there's far too much of that theater, and the western war is downplayed. This is a serious problem of emphasis, since the defeat of the Confederacy was secured by the Union forces WEST of the Appalachians.

Just to join the chorus, can't go wrong with McPherson.

Also, Foner's "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War" gives a great overview of the ideological underpinnings of the Civil War.

I would recommend the "Memoirs of US Grant". It goes beyond the Civil War, including parts of the Mexican-American War, and his time between the wars.

Is it unbiased? Less so than you might think. Written while Mr. Grant was dying of throat cancer, it has a natural haste. Originally published by Mark Twain.

It is still the best single primary source on the Great Rebellion.

The key reason why the North won: The South was fighting to continue the institution of human slavery, a cause which divided them from many natural allies (such as Britain), and dishonored anyone who sought to perform honest work. The North was fighting to retain the US as a self governing Union, ruled by laws, rather than wealthy plantation owners.

As Grant noted, over 50 regiments which fought for the Union were raised in the South. 1/3rd of the Union Army was African Americans, despite the special danger to them from the so called "Confederates" who did not treat them in accordance with the agreed prisoner of war cartel. More came from overseas to fight for the Union, most famously the Irish, but also many from Germany.

If you want something beyond a narrative of the entire war, I highly recommend Gerald F. Linderman, Embattled Courage: The Experience of Combat in the American Civil War (1987). I read it in a graduate history seminar years ago. It's a fascinating read, and relevant to the experience of war generally, not just the Civil War (e.g., what happens when soldiers return home). Also, it's under 500 pages.

For a condensed (and illustrated) Civil War history, I am partial to The American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War (authored by Bruce Catton).

There's also this paperback version, which probably lacks many of the illustrations in the above version.

Here's a variation on the theme--
Try to find a copy (probably out of print now?) of the late Prof. Rowena Reed, "Combined Operations in the Civil War." She was one of the first to explore how the Civil War really was a forerunner of modern warfare and some of the 'strategery' foreshadowed 20th century political and military developments...

Love him or hate him, for Reconstruction it's Foner.

Surely there is some other alternative? Maybe I'm guilty of a poisoned-well fallacy here, but surely there is a decent history of Reconstruction by a non-Marxist?

Bruce Catton's Centennial of the Civil War Trilogy is the way to go. The three volumes are longer than your 500 page limit, but they are fast reads. The first book, The Coming Fury deals with the causes of the war up to the First Battle of Bull Run. The second, Terrible Swift Sword starts with the aftermath of Bull Run to Fredricksburg. The last book is Never Call Retreat. The one volume history is actually mis-named. It is the combination of Mr. Catton's Army of the Potomac trilogy. He also wrote a trilogy of works on U.S. Grant.

I also consider Ralph Korngold's biography of Thaddeus Stevens is valuable, too.

I'll second this recommendation as a means of making a larger point -- that the Civil War itself is somewhat like a small piece of the Bayeux Tapestry. It's not possible to isolate a few threads and say "there, just look at that and you'll understand the whole thing". Understanding that War requires not just the lead up to it, and not just Reconstruction, but the whole history of race and federal v. state power in the US, from the introduction of the first slaves to the present. All the threads connect together. I personally think it's a fascinating story, covered in lots of extremely well-written books, and worth far more than a few weeks reading.

Off topic somewhat, but i was a civil war buff years ago, and i recently read Tony Horwitz's "Confederates in the Attic" and it's got me hooked again. Not historical, but a short, chronological roadtrip through the civil war's battlefields by a modern day war correspondent (includes a chapter of his meetings with Foote btw)Good for a cross-country plane trip.

Battle Cry is the historical book I'd recommend.

Dear Prof:

My recommendations (with limitations, qualifications and comments in brackets):

Duke, Basil Wilson, A History of Morgan's Cavalry. Cincinnati, Ohio: Miami Printing and Pub. Co., 1867. [Available on-line at www.kyvl.org/kentuckiana/ This work was written by one of the participants, not long after the Civil War, so that memories were still fresh and subject to challenge by other participants. Duke was a lawyer from St. Louis who traveled to Kentucky to join the CSA. He was also BGen John Hunt Morgan's brother-in-law, second in command (until Morgan was killed, and then unit commander). Several of Morgan's raids were directed at destroying the tracks, trains and rolling stock of the Louisville &Nashville R.R. - causing $Millions of damages. After the Civil War, Duke became General Counsel for the L &N R.R.]

Horwitz, Lester V., The Longest Raid of the Civil War. Cincinnati, Ohio: Farmcourt Publishing, Inc., 1999. [The "Long Raid" by Morgan is the longest cavalry raid in US history — across Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio to the W. Va. border — some of Morgan's men managed to escape and work their way back to the C.S.A. Morgan and Duke were captured and imprisoned in the Ohio State pen, from which they escaped and returned to the C.S.A., to re-organize their unit and begin, again, taking action against Union forces in Tennessee and Kentucky. Horwitz is an amateur historian, but did a professional job in researching and writing this very readable book about events that are now, unfortunately, largely forgotten]

Rebel Raider: The Life of General John Hunt Morgan, by James A. Ramage. [Unfortunately, Ramage engaged in "Psychohistory" — psycho-babble — by trying to analyze a mid-19th Century Southern Gentleman from a late-20th century perspective. The book does, however, contain many details about Morgan's pre-Civil War life and family history, which makes the book worth reading. However, the book is also a clear lesson in the dangers of an author making his/her opinions the starting point, and failing to understand historical figures in the context of their times and cultures. IMO, Morgan was a living Rhett Butler, with all the faults and strengths of character that implies. However, if you want to understand that, Ramage supplies the facts – just ignore his psycho-babble analysis.]

The Raiders of 1862, by James D. Brewer [Best work of its kind and very short and readable. Brewer, Lt. Colonel, U.S. Army (ret), is a former editor of Armor Magazine and understands cavalry tactics. He covers 3 raids, and compares and contrasts them and their effectiveness. Armstrong's raid into Northern Mississippi in Sept. 1862 — and this may be the only work that does that — Forrest's Western Tennessee Raid in Dec. 1862 - Jan. 1863, and Morgan's Christmas Raid into Kentucky in Dec. 1862 - Jan. 1863. I only wish he had covered “Buck” Van Dorn’s Holly Springs Mississippi raid in Dec. 1862 – Jan. 1863, too, but, Brewer told me that Van Dorn is adequately covered elsewhere. The effects of Morgan and Forrest (and Van Dorn) raids were to completely disrupt supply lines to the Union Armies in Western and Central Tennessee. The ultimate effects were much greater. Grant (and Sherman) learned that they could live off the land – which Grant used to complete the taking of the Mississippi Valley and Sherman used in his March to the Sea. Rosecrans decided that he needed to spread more of his forces protecting his river and railroad supply lines. Morgan’s raid cut Rosecrans’s railroad (the L &N R.R.) for 3 months (Rosecrans detailed over half of his 95,000 Soldiers to rebuilding the railroad and for guard duty, while after Stone’s River, Bragg’s Army was reduced to less than 30,000 Soldiers), so that Rosecrans did not thereafter follow-up on the Battle of Stone’s River to try to achieve a decisive strategic victory over Bragg, and also Rosecrans failed to aggressively press on to Chattanooga. Rosecrans’s strategy had been to capture Tullhoma, TN, and move on Chattanooga. Rosecrans did not move on Bragg at Tullhoma for 6 months. Thus, Morgan’s Christmas Raid can be viewed as resulting in a strategic victory for the C.S.A.

Another apparent effect was that after Morgan returned from the Christmas Raid, finding that so many friends from Kentucky had been killed or wounded in the Battle of Stone’s River, along with the useless and suicidal attack on the Union left flank by the Kentucky “Orphan Brigade, that he developed complete contempt for Bragg. This was likely was a major factor in Morgan’s direct disobedience of Bragg’s orders so that Morgan crossed into Indiana for the Long Raid.

Further research leads to finding that in December of 1862, Jefferson Davis was making a tour of the Western Theater. He announced his intentions in various speeches, so that the strategy was accurately reported in the Chicago Tribune on December 17, 1862. In the context of this, Van Dorn’s raid was a complete surprise – Davis had relieved Van Dorn of command, and the Holly Springs Raid was an impromptu affair thought up by some of his friends and sold to Van Dorn’s replacement, Pemberton. Pemberton was both worried about Grant, and didn’t know what to do with a fellow Major General (Van Dorn) who out-ranked him based on date of rank, but who had earned Jefferson Davis’ enmity. One of the enduring mysteries is whether Julia Grant and some of U.S. Grant’s children were captured by Van Dorn in Holly Springs. Van Dorn placed a strong guard around one house and no one could enter it without his personal permission, and he refused to answer questions about that. Grant does not mention this in his Memoirs , but dealt with the Union Commander of Holly Springs very harshly, although he’d gone out of his way to protect that officer previously.

As a lawyer, my favorite part of The Raiders of 1862 is involves the Battle during the Christmas Raid between Morgan and Union Colonel John Marshall Harlan (later U.S. Supreme Court Justice, aka “The Great Dissenter”, who had been a slave owner, and was the first Justice to argue that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights and made them apply to the states. His dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson should be required reading in any Constitutional Law class). Harlan’s Brigade was the only one to catch Morgan. The Battle began just as a Court-Martial was concluding. BGen Morgan had accused one of his Lt. Colonels of disobeying his orders concerning the conditions of parole of Union prisoners. Colonel Duke, Morgan’s brother-in-law, presided. The Court-Martial had just concluded – with an acquittal (how’s that for due process?) – when Harlan’s artillery opened up. Duke was one of the few casualties, receiving a head wound. Everyone thought Duke was dead, but his body was thrown over a horse and lead across the river. Duke recovered shortly thereafter and helped lead the unit through a perilous escape back to Tennessee to rejoin Bragg’s Army]

That Devil Forrest: Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, by John A. Wyeth [While too long to meet your criteria, it is the definitive biography of Forrest. Wyeth rode with Morgan on the Christmas Raid as part of Morgan’s Scout Company, and is mentioned in Brewer’s book. However, Wyeth was too young to enlist in the C.S.A. After the Civil War, Wyeth became a physician. A patient died, leading Wyeth to conclude that the death was due to his mal-practice due to inadequate training. He went to Europe and studied medicine. Upon his return, his efforts lead to the establishment of a standardized 4-year medical school curriculum in the U.S. as a doctorate degree to be completed after completion of college. His reputation was such that he was called to the UK to attend Queen Victoria. Many places in Europe and elsewhere, a medical degree is a Bachelors Degree program. Wyeth is the father of modern medicine in the U.S.]

Wyeth was also a poet:

GENERAL ORDER, a Civil War Poem by John Allan Wyeth:

Cut out the singing, don't you know they're dead men in the village! Blown to bits—the hicks had lights in their tents." "How many got it?" "Four." —“

You heard the new order?" "One got done up brown, stood up to drink—we couldn't find his head." —“

Say Headquarters is in a hell of a fix, they can't find men enough to dig the floor of the officers' tents—they got to be dug down three feet by sundown—Bet they're seeing red!" —"Hello you staff birds, get to work—'BY SIX THE FLOOR OF EVERY TENT MUST BE' — "

"Go tell the General where to get off." "You make us sore, just 'cause you got a cellar in the town—"

"You lousy shavetail, beat it, go to hell—"

[IMO the most important battle of the Civil War was the Battle of Perryville, KY. Lincoln remarked “I’d like God on my side, but I must have Kentucky.” Perryville marked the defeat of C.S.A. efforts to take Kentucky – had that occurred, it is likely that families with Southern ties living in southern Indiana and Ohio would have either pushed for secession or, at least, cut the flow of supplies from the West, which were essential to the Union in the East. It quite possibly could have cut the Union in two. Further, securing Kentucky meant that the Mississippi Valley, and central and then western Tennessee (and Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia) were open for invasion.]

Staff Ride Handbook for the Battle of Perryville, 8 October 1862, by Dr. Robert S. Cameron, Ph.D., US Army Armor Center, Ft. Knox, KY, Combat Studies Institute Press, Ft. Leavenworth, KS. [Available on-line. The reenactment at Perryville each fall is the 2d largest in the U.S. – Gettysburg is the only larger one. Dr. Cameron is the Army Historian at Ft. Knox, and his Staff Ride Handbook is essential to understanding the battle – including the effects of optical illusions, smoke, terrain, noise and general confusion on the course of the Battle. Dr. Cameron has done other works, and presentations, covering the entirety of the 1862 Kentucky campaign. This book is essential for any tour of Perryville, and if you have a chance to meet Dr. Cameron, you will value the experience.]

Prose Sketches and Poems, Written in the Western Country (1834), by Albert Pike. [Pike largely fell into disrepute due to his involvement in the Civil War. However, before then this was considered to be only 2d in importance to the Lewis &Clark journals in motivating the westward expansion of the U.S. His descriptions of the Southwest are outstanding, and probably the best in describing so much of the nation before its settlement.]

[I am, perhaps, something of a Civil War nut-job – of whom there are many. Although I do not subscribe to the “Great Man” theory of history, I do enjoy reading about the larger than life characters who populate 19th century U.S. history. History is much more than facts and dates. The outsized egos, ambitions, jealousies, pettiness, rivalries, intelligence and nobility – not infrequently displayed by the same person – turns history into an exciting pastime. Whenever possible, I like to read works by the participants. Sometimes they disclose what they were thinking. Other times they are rationalizing. Either approach gives insight. I hope you will find my suggestions worth your time to read.]

What is the "gay angle" of the War of 1812???

Has anyone actually read it, or is that one of those things like the unabridged Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that no one actually reads.

I've read Foote three times and I frequently grab a volume from the shelf, open it at random, and read a few pages. The Civil War is America's epic and Foote our Homer.

"The Civil War is America's epic and Foote our Homer"?

"Nevermind is America's epic, and Cobain our Homer."

Also sprach Hoosier


Mr. Mandias: My advisor in college claimed to have read the entire Gibbon one summer when he was an undergrad. I am not going to call him a liar. But, if true, this seems like a waste of a perfectly good summer.

I concur with the recommendation for the Civil War section of Churchill's 'History of the English Speaking Peoples'.

Longer, but worthwhile are US Grant's memoirs. Grant has the reputation of a buffoon, but his memoirs are wonderful - he and Churchill both write prose that is worth reading for the sheer artistry, in addition to the content.

I also like Jeffrey Hummel's "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" and agree that this war was not really a "Civil War" anymore than the Revolutionary War was one.

Mandias: I think Hoosier was commenting on the qualities of Gibbon in particular, not book-reading in general.

wfjag:

I am, perhaps, something of a Civil War nut-job...

Who coulda guessed? [i keed!]

Kudos for your post above. You should write a Civil War book yourself about those [generally unknown] cavalry raids. I'd buy it.