Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Vanity) Recommendations For Books on the "Civil War"/War Between The States

Posted on 06/25/2008 10:44:52 PM PDT by GOP_Raider

I told myself I'd limit myself to one vanity post per several hundred comments and threads I'd posted, so I apologize in advance.

Currently, I'm doing some summer reading and I'm looking specifically for books on the Civil War/War Between the States--or the "War of Northern Agression" if you're so inclined. While I am for certain that this topic could fill up my living room and perhaps my grandparents' entire house, I'm looking for anything that those of you who argue back and forth on the Civil War threads have read. Thanks in advance.


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: civilwar; confederacy; dixie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-136 next last
To: stainlessbanner
There was no hostility in the 3-man delegation. They were statesmen, not conquerers or warriors.

Merely smart PR. Just as Hitler put on a benign front at Munich. It wouldn't do to send people such as Toombs to negotiate Lincoln's surrender.

101 posted on 07/02/2008 10:48:50 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
No reason for Forsyth to sugar-coat or mislead an internal letter to Walker.

It is funny that coward Seward called in sick when the CSA commissioners tried to meet with him.

102 posted on 07/02/2008 11:03:04 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Toombs was not sent with the envoy; however he was in Davis’ cabinet.


103 posted on 07/02/2008 11:05:37 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: fredhead
Leckie has written other histories, such as “George Washington’s War,” Delivered From Evil - The Saga of World War II,” and “The Wars of America.” His writing style is easy to read, and enjoyable. He also authored a book on the battle of Guadalcanal which I haven’t read. Mr. Leckie was a Marine who fought on Guadalcanal.

Whatever else you read in the next year, make time for Leckie's "Challenge for the Pacific; Guadalcanal, the turning point of the war."

I can still cite passages from that book from when I read it over forty years ago.

104 posted on 07/02/2008 11:13:32 AM PDT by abb (Organized Journalism: Marxist-style collectivism applied to information sharing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
No reason for Forsyth to sugar-coat or mislead an internal letter to Walker.

What sugar-coating? He's bragging about having Lincoln over a barrel, an obvious reference to the ultimatum. I will grant that Forsyth was right when he said that time was on the side of the South, and found his 'blunder us into a war' comment pretty interesting. That's just what the Davis administration did. Couldn't wait to start one.

105 posted on 07/02/2008 11:47:01 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner; Colonel Kangaroo
Toombs was not sent with the envoy; however he was in Davis’ cabinet.

Indeed he was, giving his unheeded warning that firing on Sumter would initiate a war the likes the South couldn't imagine, and would be suicidal. He was right, too.

106 posted on 07/02/2008 11:48:56 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Your assertion that the war began and was a necessary consequence of the confederate defense of Fort Sumter is simply not true as no necessary causal connection existed between the events, nor has any ever been demonstrated in the entire 147 years since it happened.

You have that backwards. The confederates attacked Fort Sumter while the federal garrison defended it. And an attack on a federal garrison certainly is an act of rebellion, which started the whole conflict.

107 posted on 07/02/2008 11:53:17 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; Colonel Kangaroo
February 15 Congress passed a resolution advising Davis to appoint a three-man commission to be sent to Washington
"for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between [the United States] and the Confederate States of America; and for the settlement of all questions of disagreements between the two Governments, upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith."

Davis selected Martin J. Crawford, Andre B. Roman, and John Forsyth.

No Toombs in the commission - he was Sec of State and busy working with Davis.

108 posted on 07/02/2008 12:02:58 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
From the Jefferson Davis letter to Lincoln introducing the men:

"For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States...to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations..."

Note how 'negotiate' was dropped in favor the the instruction 'establish', and 'questions of disagreement' became 'matters and subjects interesting to both nations'. The confederate legislation authorized discussion, the Davis letter presented an ultimatum. The legislation held out hopes of compromise, the Davis letter cut off any chance of that. Is it any wonder that Lincoln refused to be bullied and dictated to by the likes of Jefferson Davis, and therefore refused to meet his representatives?

109 posted on 07/02/2008 12:19:37 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Your assertion that the war began and was a necessary consequence of the confederate defense of Fort Sumter is simply not true as no necessary causal connection existed between the events, nor has any ever been demonstrated in the entire 147 years since it happened.

That's because you assume that it's your business to dish it out and the North's to take it, that whatever the South does to assert its "rights" is permissible and any response by the rest of the country other than simply turning the other cheek is unexplainable and unjustified.

That's the kind of ... well ... to put it kindly, lack of regard for the reactions of others ... that caused the war.

If California or some part of it "seceded" tomorrow, would anyone seriously expect that they could simply lay claim to the San Diego Naval Base, Twentynine Palms, Edwards AFB, and Camp Pendleton? Or that they'd be within their rights if they tried to eject American soldiers and sailors and marines from federal property and started shooting at US troops?

I really doubt it. Things may have been a bit different in 1861, but not radically different. One would have had to anticipate that there could have and would have been some federal effort to maintain continuity, at least until the situation could have been resolved.

But the thing is, it's all emotional with you guys.

110 posted on 07/02/2008 1:11:51 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
Shadow written by Mark Twain, no less, while Grant was dying of throat cancer.

Not true. Twain was his publisher, but Grant did all of the writing.

111 posted on 07/02/2008 1:26:16 PM PDT by Ditto (Global Warming: The 21st Century's Snake Oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider
Really?? That's too intriguing to pass up. I would think that he would prefer a divided U.S. for as long as possible (or maybe a guy like Lenin would have), I'm really surprised about this.

Keep this in mind. Karl Marx was not a Commie dictator as we have come to know them. He was just a piss poor economist and Utopian 'social thinker' who figured he had a solution to all of the world's problems. He didn't begin to comprehend the hell on Earth that his solutions would generate when actually applied by monsters like Stalin, Mao, or Castro who would use his half baked ideas to commit their crimes.

If he had lived long enough to see that, he would have denounced both them and his own theories.

112 posted on 07/02/2008 1:44:20 PM PDT by Ditto (Global Warming: The 21st Century's Snake Oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

I stand corrected. Thank you!


113 posted on 07/02/2008 4:45:21 PM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner ("We must not forget that there is a war on and our troops are in the thick of it!"--Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; stainlessbanner; PeaRidge
Their sole purpose, as laid out in the letter Davis sent to Lincoln, was "establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States.." No discussion. No negoitiation. thing but recognition. [my bold]

You are being disingenuous again. My emphasis below. Confederate Commissioners to Seward:

With a view to a speedy adjustment of all questions growing out of this political separation, upon such terms of amity and good will as the respective interests, geographical contiguity, and future welfare of the two nations may render necessary, the undersigned are instructed to make to the Government of the United States overtures for the opening of negotiations, assuring the Government of the United States that the President, Congress, and people of the Confederate States earnestly desire a peaceful solution of these great questions; that it is neither their interest nor their wish to make any demand which is not founded in strictest justice, nor do any act to injure their late confederates.

And after he [Lincoln] had done that, once he had surrendered, then there was a vague offer to discuss "matters and subjects interesting to both nations". If payment for debt wasn't a subject interesting to the South then apparently it wasn't a topic to discuss. If compensation for stolen federal property wasn't a matter intersting to the South, then apparently that wasn't on the table, either.

Davis to Lincoln:

For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate [there's that negotiation word again] of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States.

Resolution of the Confederate Congress instructing the Confederate Commissioners:

That said commissioners be further instructed to present to the Government of the United States assurances of the sincere wish on the part of this Government to preserve the most friendly relations between the two Governments and the States comprising the same, and to settle, by peaceful negotiations [um, there's that word again] all matters connected with the public property and the indebtedness of the Government of the United States existing before the withdrawal of any of the States of this Confederacy

You get hung up on the first sentence of Davis' letter and ignore the rest. In response to that sentence, Lincoln could have said, "I'm a man of peace. I will negotiate with any group of states over their concerns, but unless we reach a satisfactory agreement, I do not and will not recognize the existence of the Confederacy."

But Lincoln did not want to negotiate. He recognized that the South was not going to let him collect the tariff on ships entering their ports. He apparently felt that war was inevitable over this insistence of his (as did Davis and the Confederate leaders). That being the case, Lincoln's objective was to chose how the war was to begin. Welles basically argued that in a cabinet meeting. Maury Klein's book Days of Defiance argues that that was what drove Lincoln to take the actions he did concerning Sumter. Lincoln achieved his objective.

114 posted on 07/02/2008 11:26:12 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
You are being disingenuous again.

You're ignoring the facts again.

Confederate Commissioners to Seward...

Confederate president to Lincoln:

"For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States."

So who was running the circus down there, Davis or his commissioners? Who should Lincoln believe, a letter from Davis or a message from one of his minions? The Davis letter is worded to make it perfectly clear that there was no room for negotiation. The men were there to obtain diplomatic recognition and acceptance of the legality of the confederate actions, not to talk about anything.

...there's that negotiation word again...

Again? That was the first time it was included in that letter, and unless Lincoln gave in to that ultimatum about recognition then talking about 'subjects and matters interesting to both' wasn't going to happen. And had Lincoln surrendered to the demand, there would only be discussions on matters if the confederacy found them of interest. Which may, or may not have included paying for the stuff they took and the debt they walked out on. We'll never know because Lincoln refused to be bullied.

Resolution of the Confederate Congress instructing the Confederate Commissioners....

It's very interesting that you should bring that up because it prompts the obvious questeion, why did Davis change the wording? Why did he remove the words about public property and debt and substitute 'subjects and matters interesting to both nations'? You have to admit, that changes the tone of the letter completely. The legislation puts compensation on the table, the Davis letter takes it off. Unless he found it interesting, of course. In fact, if you look at the whole question of compensation, it is one continuous watering down of the obligation. The provisional constitution made it clear that the confederacy had an obligation, and settlement of matters of debt and payment for property was required. The confederate congress watered that down to 'negotiating' about it. Davis took it off the table completely. Unless he found it interesting, of course.

Lincoln had one document to go by, the letter from Davis. That letter contained demands, not compromise. It was an ultimatum, not a peace offer. It proposed compensation for nothing, admitted responsibility for nothing, and was a calculated slap in the face. It was designed to promote a war. And it worked.

115 posted on 07/03/2008 8:04:37 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Lincoln had one document to go by, the letter from Davis. That letter contained demands, not compromise. It was an ultimatum, not a peace offer. It proposed compensation for nothing, admitted responsibility for nothing, and was a calculated slap in the face. It was designed to promote a war. And it worked.

I recommend that you attend a class in remedial reading comprehension.

116 posted on 07/03/2008 8:20:04 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
I recommend that you attend a class in remedial reading comprehension.

Recommendation noted, and I promise I'll give it the same consideration I give the rest of your suggestions.

117 posted on 07/03/2008 8:24:40 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; rustbucket
It is evident the CSA envoy was there to negotiate peacefully and ask for time to resolve issues before hostilities broke out. Internal and external correspondence verify this.

At least those Southerners didn't hide in their home the day of the meeting like that coward Seward.

118 posted on 07/03/2008 8:29:12 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
It is evident the CSA envoy was there to negotiate peacefully and ask for time to resolve issues before hostilities broke out. Internal and external correspondence verify this.

Negotiate what? An end to the secession? Not on the table. Their demand was recognition, and in that their instructions - any version of which you care to quote from - made it clear that no negotiation on that position was permitted. So your claim that they were there to 'negotiate peacefully' ignores the ultimatum they placed before Lincoln.

And again, even if Lincoln had surrendered to the confederate demand on recognition, the Davis letter to him makes no promises on negotiation in good faith, no offer to compensate for property stolen or debt repudiated. It contains a vague offer to discuss matters, but only if they are of interest to both sides. Why did Davis water down the instructions of the confederate congress if he had any intention of dealing with debt and property? Why didn't he make it clear in his letter that those issues were on the table? The only possible answer is that so far as Davis was concerned they were not.

At least those Southerners didn't hide in their home the day of the meeting like that coward Seward.

How can you start your war if you don't go out there and insult your opponents?

119 posted on 07/03/2008 8:43:57 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: x; stainlessbanner; rustbucket
So, I see that you are conceding the point of the origin of the war as affixed by the United States Congress.

I see also that you are conceding the irrelevancy of both the articles you referenced.

I see also that you are conceding the fact that war was not the inevitable consequence of Charleston's defense of its harbor.

“But the thing is, it's all emotional with you guys.”

I don't see any emotion in any of the rebuttals to your fallacious assertions.

120 posted on 07/03/2008 8:55:44 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-136 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson