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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: James M. McPherson's Antietam

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.