Shelfby Foote v. Bruce Catton v. James McPherson

I'm currently about 1/4 through volume two of Shelby Foote's trilogy. Wondering a few things:

1. After completeing this trilogy, is there enough new/different information in The Battle Cry of Freedom and Bruce Catton's trilogy to spend my time on? Or, is Foote enough to get me into more specific study?

2. For those who have read two or more of the above authors, which is the best (or which did you like best) and why?

The only trilogy of Bruce Catton's with which I am familiar is his three part history of the Army of the Potomac - Mr. Lincoln's Army, Glory Road, and A Stillness at Appomattox. Given that Shelby Fooet's trilogy addresses the entire war, it is fair to say that they really are different - whether you want to read both of them or not depends, I guess, on whether you want to read everything of quality (at least) written about the American Civil War.

Robert A. Mosher

As to Catton I'm referring to The Coming Fury, Terrible Swift Sword, and Never Call Retreat

I think it's worthwhile to read all three. Foote & Catton are like comparing an apple and an orange, Catton's more focused on the war in the east (his other trilogy is on the Union Army of the Potomac). Foote takes the war further afield; for example, the Red River Campaign, Vicksburg etc. McPherson's work is certainly worthwhile and restricted to a single volume. I also recommend Shades of blue and gray : an introductory military history of the Civil War as a great jumping off place. Feel free to check my catalog as well for possible titles of interest.

McPherson's The Battle Cry of Freedom is simply the best single-volume history of the Civil War. Also, Shelby Foote was not, in his own view, a professional historian and McPherson is. Foote's books are great reading, in part because the telling is a little romantcized, and in part because of great research. Foote was also a Southerner. McPherson isn't.

Slate had this intersting take on Foote at the time of his death: http://slate.com/id/2121924/

McPherson has also written other excellent Civil War histories, such as Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution.

Read them both. Catton, too, for that matter, although it's been 20 years since I read him, he did win a Pulitzer Prize.

What I'm trying to say is that McPherson's treatment is more of an academic history, albeit eminently readable, while Foote's is an entertaining narrative history unburdened by footnotes (likewise Catton), but also well-researched.

dougwood57--Thanks for posting the Slate obit, which is really interesting. It contains a link to a Paris Review interview with Foote that is also worth reading.

Hi, hoping one of you Civil War buffs can help me. I was watching BookTV on cable a few months ago, maybe last year. There was a panel discussion on the CW. A man talked about the technological advancements that resulted from the CW. I don't remember his name. I was amazed to learn that before the CW there was no such thing as right/left shoe. This man spoke at lenght and it was almost poetic. I know this is maddenly vague but if someone else saw the program and know who this man is I'd appreciate it.

Embarrased,
Belle

Gautherbelle, was the author Max Boot talking about his book War Made New?

thanks but no. The man I'm thinking of was strictly about the Civil War. Thanks again.

Belle

hmmm, how about Tom Wheeler and his book Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails: The Untold Story Of How Abraham Lincoln Used The Telegraph to Win the Civil War?

Belle -
don't be too frustrated because he got it partially wrong. At the beginning of the war, the military's shoes were all made on a straight last - meaning that there were no right shoes or left shoes (unless you never switched them around in which case the wear would eventually make each shoe wearable only on the one foot). But before the war ended, the Union army introduced shoes with a bent or cooked last - in other words there was a left shoe and a right shoe. The Confederacy never did this as they did not have access to the necessary machinery.

Robert A. Mosher

Not frustrated with anyone but self for not writing down the name of the guy. I was so captivated by this speech that I didn't do my due diligence and get his name.

I would rather listen to Shelby Foote than read him. This is no doubt of his unlimited knowledge of the war, but his style of prose does not compare with Bruce Catton. I know that I am not objective because it was Catton's writing on the Civil War and in the pages of American Heritage that help kindle my love of history ( I have taught American History for 34 years, have my Master's in History). McPherson is the scholar of the the three. I think that his "For Cause and Comrades" is better than his " Battle Cry of Freedom".

dougwood57 I'm a huge fan of Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails: The Untold Story Of How Abraham Lincoln Used The Telegraph to Win the Civil War, it really is fun. Though in truth it says more about technological application rather than the war itself.

Bruce Catton is a great read as is Shelby Foote.
McPherson is as brownt says the scholar of the three!

Eoin

I have not read as much McPherson as Foote and Catton. The Coming Fury is my favorite book on the beginning of the war and the Army of the Potomac trilogy is very good. Of the three I prefer Foote, primarily because I feel his narrative is more balanced. He gives more detail on the Southern side. Reading Catton and McPherson I got very little detail about Southern generals or the impact of the war on the South. I also consider Foote a better writer. He had a background writing fiction and his narrative is more expressive. Foote is also an easier read because of the lack of footnotes, although I often enjoy the little tidbits that come in footnotes.
Foote's trilogy covers the whole war and that is another advantage. I do enjoy reading Catton and he wrote more extensively than Foote. He is a very good writer and more of a scholar than Foote. I do not see any authors that have equaled these three in their expansive coverage of the war and any student of the war should read all three.

Catton was a historian of a school unfortunately gone; they could write near poetry to emphasize their facts without exaggerating them. His closing chapter on Antietam brought the carnage home the way nothing else has. I would read McPherson for the facts, but I would read Catton to put humanity on the facts.

I would also suggest that you add The West Point Military Series: The American Civil War to your reading list. It has an excellent summary treatment of strategy and tactics, and don't forget to include the atlas The West Point Military Series: American Civil War Atlas. By the way, although not a "book," the History Channel's CDs, Great Battles of the Civil War Animated should not be overlooked. I don't think anyone can truly appreciate Meade's maneuver genius on the second day of Gettysburg without seeing it animated.

As for Foote, he's of the genre of Catton, but in my view there's no comparison.

I have read Jeff Shaara's 'history' including his father's KILLER ANGELS and yes I know what you will say it is historical fiction however, it gives much insight to the American Civil War. Read parts of Battle Cry of Freedom and Shelby Foote's magnificent history. Found all worthwhile reading of course but Shaara gives a more personal view.

I'm slowly working my way through the canonical works of Civil War history, with numerous sidetracks along the way to read about aspects of the war of particular interest to me. I have read The Army of the Potomac trilogy by Catton as well as Beleaguered City and a few other portions of Shelby Foote's works. I don't have the inclination to read Foote's trilogy straight through. Recently started reading Battle Cry of Freedom.

I agree with the assessment of McPherson vs. Foote. I truly enjoyed Foote's work and it is obvious that he mastered eloquent and readable prose. I am also a great admirer of McPherson for the same reasons dougwood57 has stated. McPherson's writing is academically verifiable and extremely well-written. I should also point out that McPherson's The Battle Cry of Freedom is a part of the Oxford series on American History, therefore, the book covers from the Mexican War to the end of the Civil War. It is roughly 150 or so pages before you even get to Ft. Sumter. I see this as a great benefit as it both develops the story of the Civil War officers corps as young military school graduates and provides a broad and detailed analysis of the national picture; politically, economically, and socially, to understand not just the causality of the conflict but also the events and circumstances that originated before the war that directly influenced events during the war (ie, think about railroads).

As for Mr. Catton's work, he is a tremendous writer and as anyone will probably tell you, to be considered a true student of the Civil War, you must read Catton. I enjoyed his Army of the Potomac series, but, myself, being more of a Western Theater guy, would strongly recommend the Grant trilogy. Lloyd Lewis wrote the first installment, Captain Sam Grant, and after his death, Catton finished the remaining two books.

I greatly prefer Shelby Foote, any reading of his trilogy is aided by the CSPAN interview:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?165823-1/depth-shelby-foote

This is my favorite interview:

http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/60099-1/Shelby-Foote

Some touchstones and links:

Shelby Foote's The Civil War: A Narrative has been issued in several forms; see the series page: http://www.librarything.com/series/The+Civil+War%3A+A+Narrative

>13 brownt: mentioned McPherson's For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War.

>20 TheWayneD: mentioned that the first volume of Catton's Grant series, Captain Sam Grant, is by Lloyd Lewis.

And The Killer Angels got a mention.