Denna webbplats använder kakor för att fungera optimalt, analysera användarbeteende och för att visa reklam (om du inte är inloggad). Genom att använda LibraryThing intygar du att du har läst och förstått våra Regler och integritetspolicy. All användning av denna webbplats lyder under dessa regler.
Resultat från Google Book Search
Klicka på en bild för att gå till Google Book Search.
Filled with fresh interpretations and information, puncturing old myths and challenging new ones, this fast-paced narrative fully integrates the political, social, and military events that crowded the two decades from the outbreak of one war in Mexico to the ending of another at Appomattox. Packed with drama and analytical insight, the book vividly recounts the momentous episodes that preceded the Civil War: the Dred Scott decision, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. It then moves into a chronicle of the war itself, the battles, the strategic maneuvering on both sides, the politics, and the personalities. Particularly notable are new views on such matters as the slavery expansion issue in the 1850s, the origins of the Republican Party, the causes of secession, internal dissent and anti-war opposition in the North and the South, and the reasons for the Union's victory. The book's title refers to the sentiments that informed both the Northern and Southern views of the conflict: the South seceded in the name of that freedom of self-determination and self-government for which their fathers had fought in 1776, while the North stood fast in defense of the Union founded by those fathers as the bulwark of American liberty. Eventually, the North had to grapple with the underlying cause of the war, slavery, and adopt a policy of emancipation as a second war aim. This "new birth of freedom," as Lincoln called it, constitutes the proudest legacy of America's bloodiest conflict. This volume makes sense of that vast and confusing "second American Revolution" we call the Civil War, a war that transformed a nation and expanded our heritage of liberty.… (mer)
wildbill: This is the Library of America edition of Grant's memoirs which I think is preferable. Any edition of Grant's memoirs will be informative and enjoyable.
wcfreels: Just finished it for the first time last week. Best read on the Civil War I've ever read. So well written that, unlike the soldiers, I hated to see it end.
After having managed, barely, to get halfway through James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, I put the book aside in wonder. And, unfortunately, I don’t mean that in a favorable way. Neither eloquent nor impartial, lacking any new hypotheses and perspectives, this work falls abysmally short of what one should expect from a Pulitzer Prize winner. A dry read that is laced with sanctimonious regurgitation of political agendas that were made with hindsight many decades after the Civil War. McPherson portrays – if he does at all - the characters of the era (leading men and lower ranks alike) like long dried-up gingerbread men and to add insult to injury the majority of such characters are related to the Union. There is also noticeable “cherry-picking” involved in his scheme. Clearly, in such instances when he writes about notables that fought for the South, he selects the most infamous ones, and then spends his mediocre literary talent expanding - even carefully trotting out their most damning character flaws and recorded actions - of which there were many. A less than sophisticated writing style one can forgive but should not a writer of a serious work of any history abstain from such subterfuge?
Most readers don’t seem to care and neither does the association awarding the Pulitzer Prize. At least, they did not in 1989. Well, the reasons completely elude me. This is even more puzzling as there are infinitely better works out there like Shelby Foote’s equally eloquent and exhaustive Narrative of the Civil War though offering a somewhat narrower perspective does include intriguing new perspectives. Also much more neutral in tone is Controversies and Commanders: Dispatches from the Army of the Potomac by Stephen Sears. I get it, the writer is an educated, smart man but in this here case - who wrote this here book then? ( )
This narrative history of the civil war both entertained and educated me about probably the most significant events in our national history. The war was both inevitable and foundation for many of the current political and social conflicts of today. I cannot emphasize how important and good this single volume history is. ( )
I thought then, and think now, that this is the finest one volume history of The Civil War. I might be persuaded to go further and say it's the finest history of The Civil War, period. Great book, incredible story, and written as such as opposed to a dry recitation of facts. Gifted writer. ( )
With this major work, McPherson (History/Princeton; Ordeal by Fire) cements his reputation as one of the finest Civil War historians. The volume begins with a deft description of the ragged American army trudging into Mexico City in 1847. From there, the narrative speeds through 28 chapters that draw a precise and lively picture of what America and Americans were like in mid-19th century. McPherson delineates the issues that galvanized and divided the American public from the end of the Mexican War in 1848 to the opening of the Civil War in 1861, providing thorough explanations of the pre-war period's gravest crises—the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the prairie guerrilla war it started; the national clamor over the Dred Scott case; anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant violence and the brief life of the nativist Know-Nothing Party; and the panic over John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859.
Filled with fresh interpretations and information, puncturing old myths and challenging new ones, this fast-paced narrative fully integrates the political, social, and military events that crowded the two decades from the outbreak of one war in Mexico to the ending of another at Appomattox. Packed with drama and analytical insight, the book vividly recounts the momentous episodes that preceded the Civil War: the Dred Scott decision, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. It then moves into a chronicle of the war itself, the battles, the strategic maneuvering on both sides, the politics, and the personalities. Particularly notable are new views on such matters as the slavery expansion issue in the 1850s, the origins of the Republican Party, the causes of secession, internal dissent and anti-war opposition in the North and the South, and the reasons for the Union's victory. The book's title refers to the sentiments that informed both the Northern and Southern views of the conflict: the South seceded in the name of that freedom of self-determination and self-government for which their fathers had fought in 1776, while the North stood fast in defense of the Union founded by those fathers as the bulwark of American liberty. Eventually, the North had to grapple with the underlying cause of the war, slavery, and adopt a policy of emancipation as a second war aim. This "new birth of freedom," as Lincoln called it, constitutes the proudest legacy of America's bloodiest conflict. This volume makes sense of that vast and confusing "second American Revolution" we call the Civil War, a war that transformed a nation and expanded our heritage of liberty.
)
)
Google Books — Laddar...
(4.44)
1
Neither eloquent nor impartial, lacking any new hypotheses and perspectives, this work falls abysmally short of what one should expect from a Pulitzer Prize winner.
A dry read that is laced with sanctimonious regurgitation of political agendas that were made with hindsight many decades after the Civil War. McPherson portrays – if he does at all - the characters of the era (leading men and lower ranks alike) like long dried-up gingerbread men and to add insult to injury the majority of such characters are related to the Union. There is also noticeable “cherry-picking” involved in his scheme. Clearly, in such instances when he writes about notables that fought for the South, he selects the most infamous ones, and then spends his mediocre literary talent expanding - even carefully trotting out their most damning character flaws and recorded actions - of which there were many.
A less than sophisticated writing style one can forgive but should not a writer of a serious work of any history abstain from such subterfuge?
Most readers don’t seem to care and neither does the association awarding the Pulitzer Prize. At least, they did not in 1989. Well, the reasons completely elude me.
This is even more puzzling as there are infinitely better works out there like Shelby Foote’s equally eloquent and exhaustive Narrative of the Civil War though offering a somewhat narrower perspective does include intriguing new perspectives. Also much more neutral in tone is Controversies and Commanders: Dispatches from the Army of the Potomac by Stephen Sears. I get it, the writer is an educated, smart man but in this here case - who wrote this here book then? (