Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

James M. McPherson's Antietam

Expand Messages
  • james2044
    I read this last week and would like other member s thoughts on the book. I found it to be a very interesting review of the war up to September 1862 but to
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 22, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I read this last week and would like other member's thoughts on the
      book. I found it to be a very interesting review of the war up to
      September 1862 but to have skipped over the battle. It might be the
      title lead me to expect a book on the battle. I din't find any new
      information or insights in this book.

      I did enjoy it and it is an easy read. At about $25 it is worth the
      money.

      James
    • John Furey
      James and all For all of you who I have met or know, it is no secret that I am A Hood s Texas Brigade fan, in particular the 1st Texas. For an historian of his
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 22, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        James and all
        For all of you who I have met or know, it is no secret that I am A Hood's
        Texas Brigade fan, in particular the 1st Texas.
        For an historian of his "stature" to not identify LTC. Philip A. Work as the
        commander of the 1st Texas is inexcusable.(pg.119).
        When it comes to Antietam, i'll stick with Harsh and Clemans.
        best,
        John

        > I read this last week and would like other member's thoughts on the
        > book. I found it to be a very interesting review of the war up to
        > September 1862 but to have skipped over the battle. It might be the
        > title lead me to expect a book on the battle. I din't find any new
        > information or insights in this book.
        >
        > I did enjoy it and it is an easy read. At about $25 it is worth the
        > money.
        >
        > James
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • David Lutton
        I don t believe McPherson s goal was to give another history of the battle. Rather than to emphasize its effect as an important turning point of American
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 22, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't believe McPherson's goal was to give another "history" of the
          battle. Rather than to emphasize its effect as an important turning point
          of American history.
          I was present at his discussion/book signing at the visitor center in Sept.
          History and writing about historical events I believe periodically takes a
          decidedly revisionist turn. For me it was refreshing to hear someone to give
          a talk on the period using basically contemporary sources. And his
          conclusions, that, yes, Mac was a poor field commander, that the results of
          the battle did indeed postpone possible foreign intervention and that the
          release of the Emancipation Proclamation was an important new statement in
          regards to the moral and political goals for the Union were well argued.

          I enjoyed the talk and the book.


          David Lutton
          Hollidaysburg Pa
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: John Furey <antietam@...>
          To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:55 PM
          Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] James M. McPherson's Antietam


          > James and all
          > For all of you who I have met or know, it is no secret that I am A Hood's
          > Texas Brigade fan, in particular the 1st Texas.
          > For an historian of his "stature" to not identify LTC. Philip A. Work as
          the
          > commander of the 1st Texas is inexcusable.(pg.119).
          > When it comes to Antietam, i'll stick with Harsh and Clemans.
          > best,
          > John
          >
          > > I read this last week and would like other member's thoughts on the
          > > book. I found it to be a very interesting review of the war up to
          > > September 1862 but to have skipped over the battle. It might be the
          > > title lead me to expect a book on the battle. I din't find any new
          > > information or insights in this book.
          > >
          > > I did enjoy it and it is an easy read. At about $25 it is worth the
          > > money.
          > >
          > > James
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • james2044
          David I enjoyed the book. It was marketed as a battle history, it is a overview of the war to September 1862 and the effects the battle had on the war. I
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 22, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            David

            I enjoyed the book. It was marketed as a battle history, it is a
            overview of the war to September 1862 and the effects the battle had
            on the war. I don't think that anyone disputes his statements but
            their is nothing new in the book. I think I expected more from him
            and from the book.

            James

            PS did you get a signed copy?

            --- In TalkAntietam@y..., "David Lutton" <dunkerch@c...> wrote:
            > I don't believe McPherson's goal was to give another "history" of
            the
            > battle. Rather than to emphasize its effect as an important
            turning point
            > of American history.
            > I was present at his discussion/book signing at the visitor center
            in Sept.
            > History and writing about historical events I believe periodically
            takes a
            > decidedly revisionist turn. For me it was refreshing to hear
            someone to give
            > a talk on the period using basically contemporary sources. And his
            > conclusions, that, yes, Mac was a poor field commander, that the
            results of
            > the battle did indeed postpone possible foreign intervention and
            that the
            > release of the Emancipation Proclamation was an important new
            statement in
            > regards to the moral and political goals for the Union were well
            argued.
            >
            > I enjoyed the talk and the book.
            >
            >
            > David Lutton
            > Hollidaysburg Pa
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: John Furey <antietam@n...>
            > To: <TalkAntietam@y...>
            > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:55 PM
            > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] James M. McPherson's Antietam
            >
            >
            > > James and all
            > > For all of you who I have met or know, it is no secret that I am
            A Hood's
            > > Texas Brigade fan, in particular the 1st Texas.
            > > For an historian of his "stature" to not identify LTC. Philip A.
            Work as
            > the
            > > commander of the 1st Texas is inexcusable.(pg.119).
            > > When it comes to Antietam, i'll stick with Harsh and Clemans.
            > > best,
            > > John
            > >
            > > > I read this last week and would like other member's thoughts
            on the
            > > > book. I found it to be a very interesting review of the war
            up to
            > > > September 1862 but to have skipped over the battle. It might
            be the
            > > > title lead me to expect a book on the battle. I din't find
            any new
            > > > information or insights in this book.
            > > >
            > > > I did enjoy it and it is an easy read. At about $25 it is
            worth the
            > > > money.
            > > >
            > > > James
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >
            > >
          • David Lutton
            Jim, Actually, I think this book is the second in a series by a group of historians examining pivotal moments in American history and was not intended as a
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 22, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Jim,

              Actually, I think this book is the second in a series by a group of
              historians examining pivotal moments in American history and was not
              intended as a battlefield history...at least that was its purpose given by
              McPherson during his discussion.

              Precisely because he simply stated the effects that the Maryland campaign
              had on the war without something "new" was what I found refreshing, given
              the current treads in civil war histories. Sometimes the reaffirmation of
              the obvious is needed. "New" can certainly sell books but I sometimes
              question it's validity or importance.


              David Lutton

              ---- Original Message -----
              From: james2044 <james2044@...>
              To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 8:39 PM
              Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: James M. McPherson's Antietam


              > David
              >
              > I enjoyed the book. It was marketed as a battle history, it is a
              > overview of the war to September 1862 and the effects the battle had
              > on the war. I don't think that anyone disputes his statements but
              > their is nothing new in the book. I think I expected more from him
              > and from the book.
              >
              > James
              >
              > PS did you get a signed copy?
              >
              > --- In TalkAntietam@y..., "David Lutton" <dunkerch@c...> wrote:
              > > I don't believe McPherson's goal was to give another "history" of
              > the
              > > battle. Rather than to emphasize its effect as an important
              > turning point
              > > of American history.
              > > I was present at his discussion/book signing at the visitor center
              > in Sept.
              > > History and writing about historical events I believe periodically
              > takes a
              > > decidedly revisionist turn. For me it was refreshing to hear
              > someone to give
              > > a talk on the period using basically contemporary sources. And his
              > > conclusions, that, yes, Mac was a poor field commander, that the
              > results of
              > > the battle did indeed postpone possible foreign intervention and
              > that the
              > > release of the Emancipation Proclamation was an important new
              > statement in
              > > regards to the moral and political goals for the Union were well
              > argued.
              > >
              > > I enjoyed the talk and the book.
              > >
              > >
              > > David Lutton
              > > Hollidaysburg Pa
              > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > From: John Furey <antietam@n...>
              > > To: <TalkAntietam@y...>
              > > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:55 PM
              > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] James M. McPherson's Antietam
              > >
              > >
              > > > James and all
              > > > For all of you who I have met or know, it is no secret that I am
              > A Hood's
              > > > Texas Brigade fan, in particular the 1st Texas.
              > > > For an historian of his "stature" to not identify LTC. Philip A.
              > Work as
              > > the
              > > > commander of the 1st Texas is inexcusable.(pg.119).
              > > > When it comes to Antietam, i'll stick with Harsh and Clemans.
              > > > best,
              > > > John
              > > >
              > > > > I read this last week and would like other member's thoughts
              > on the
              > > > > book. I found it to be a very interesting review of the war
              > up to
              > > > > September 1862 but to have skipped over the battle. It might
              > be the
              > > > > title lead me to expect a book on the battle. I din't find
              > any new
              > > > > information or insights in this book.
              > > > >
              > > > > I did enjoy it and it is an easy read. At about $25 it is
              > worth the
              > > > > money.
              > > > >
              > > > > James
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > > >
              > > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.