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

RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Good Authors of History

Expand Messages
  • tmix
    True but Foote s work is a darn good history. You don t have to be an academic historian to be a historian. Foote s work is excellent. Tom Mix ... From:
    Message 1 of 35 , May 29, 2003

      True but Foote’s work is a darn good history. You don’t have to be an ‘academic historian” to be a historian.  Foote’s work is excellent.  Tom Mix


      -----Original Message-----
      From: CashG79@... [mailto:CashG79@...]
      Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:18 AM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Good Authors of History


      In a message dated 5/29/2003 5:06:45 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, clarkc@... writes:

      >I'm not sure that a case can be made that modern historians are
      more 'reliable'; they certainly have more to work with and sift
      through. A lot of people rely on Shelby Foote - my understanding is
      that most of his information came from secondary sources.

      Shelby Foote isn't an historian.  He's a novelist who wrote a narrative about the war, not a history.


      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Bob Knutz
      100% behind ya. I do like how the popular view of those books and earlier have the reason for the Civil War is States Rights as opposed to Slavery . Some of
      Message 35 of 35 , May 30, 2003
        100% behind ya. I do like how the popular view of those books and
        earlier have the reason for the Civil War is "States Rights" as
        opposed to "Slavery".
        Some of the best Authors/Books I would pick would be; Peter Cozzens
        the "The Shipwreck of Their Hopes: The Battles for Chattanooga", the
        old time favorite by Charles L. Dufour, "the Night the War was Lost"
        and finally James Murfin's, "The Gleam of Bayonnets". All are well
        done, and have some minor errors, (Dufour revised and fixed some of
        the minor problems) but are ALL Great reading!
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "james2044" <james2044@h...>
        > Bob;
        > You do have a point their. I think of him in terms of the ACW set.
        > James2044
        > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Knutz" <bob_knutz@y...>
        > wrote:
        > > I would have to disagree with you due to the fact that even
        > > worse book Shiloh is nothing more then fiction based on fact. And
        > > Shiloh was FAR from a popular history, he could have put that
        > > with a few changes about the battle of Tarawa in the South
        > > for that fact, it showed fears and desires that men have and show
        > or
        > > hide in combat. The book was hardly a descriptive of the battle
        > > plans, but rather a story of looking at someone from a boldest
        > > soldier on the battle field to a deserter.
        > > One of the biggest forces the propelled him forward as a
        > historian
        > > was the fact that PBS found it in thier heart's to have a
        > Southener
        > > who spoke well to be in thier Civil War documentary. He did show
        > > good portayal of impartiality and told storys of both sides both
        > good
        > > and bad.
        > > WOH
        > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "james2044" <james2044@h...>
        > > wrote:
        > > > > IMHO Foote is a good story teller and that is about it. In
        > many
        > > > ways, I
        > > > > classify his works like Scharrar's Gods; fiction based on
        > > history.
        > > > >
        > > > > JEJ
        > > >
        > > > I think that's unfair! I will agree that Foote isn't
        > a "Historian"
        > > > but he did not write a novel(s) as the Scharrar did. Popular
        > > > History might be the term for Foote.
        > > >
        > > > James2044
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.