Pulse en una miniatura para ir a Google Books.
Cargando... Bushwhackers: Guerrilla Warfare, Manhood, and the Household in Civil War Missouri (The Civil War Era in the South) (edición 2019)por Joseph M. Beilein Jr. (Autor)
Información de la obraBushwhackers: Guerrilla Warfare, Manhood, and the Household in Civil War Missouri (The Civil War Era in the South) por Joseph M. Beilein Jr.
Ninguno Cargando...
Inscríbete en LibraryThing para averiguar si este libro te gustará. Actualmente no hay Conversaciones sobre este libro. sin reseñas | añadir una reseña
Bushwhackers adds to the growing body of literature that examines the various irregular conflicts that took place during the American Civil War. Author Joseph M. Beilein Jr. looks at the ways in which several different bands of guerrillas across Missouri conducted their war in concert with their house- holds and their female kin who provided logistical support in many forms. Whether noted fighters like Frank James, William Clarke Quantrill, and "Bloody Bill" Anderson, or less well-known figures such as Clifton Holtzclaw and Jim Jackson, Beilein provides a close examination of how these warriors imagined themselves as fighters, offering a brand-new interpretation that gets us closer to seeing how the men and women who participated in the war in Missouri must have understood it. Beilein answers some of the tough questions: Why did men fight as guerrillas? Where did their tactics come from? What were their goals? Why were they so successful? Bushwhackers demonstrates that the guerrilla war in Missouri was not just an opportunity to settle antebellum feuds, nor was it some collective plummet by society into a state of chaotic bloodshed. Rather, the guerrilla war was the only logical response by men and women in Missouri, and one that was more in keeping with their worldview than the conventional warfare of the day. As guerrilla conflicts rage around the world and violence remains closely linked with masculine identity here in America, this look into the past offers timely insight into our modern world and several of its current struggles. No se han encontrado descripciones de biblioteca. |
Debates activosNinguno
Google Books — Cargando... GénerosSistema Decimal Melvil (DDC)977.8History and Geography North America Midwestern U.S. MissouriClasificación de la Biblioteca del CongresoValoraciónPromedio:
¿Eres tú?Conviértete en un Autor de LibraryThing. |
Also, while the institution of slavery was indeed an abhorrent practice and much bloodshed was caused by frictions between Kansas abolitionists and Missouri slavery advocates (some bloodshed of which abolitionism was not the direct cause), the civil war was not a conflict over slavery. Many historians are now admitting this fact. The civil war was begun, fought and precipitated because of Abraham Lincoln’s desire to keep the union together. In his own words, slavery was not the issue. Preserving the union was. Beilein repeatedly plays the slavery card, explicitly and implicitly. For instance, he asserts that some of the bushwhackers were targeting blacks. His reason for this assumption? Here is an excerpt of his account of the Goslin’s Lane incident.
“Goslin’s Lane demonstrates the influence of race on the bushwhacker identity. Of the twelve or so teamsters shot down and incinerated, at least three of them were black. …For most, however, because of their skin color and the fact that in the minds of the guerrillas they were out of place, they were shot down. Here the black men sitting atop the wagons that were ambushed at Goslin’s Lane experienced just that fate.”
What kind of strange reasoning is that? Because 3 out of 12 of the teamsters killed were black, this somehow demonstrates racial influence? I suppose the fact that they were union enemies had absolutely nothing to do with it and the other eight whites killed were just collateral damage? Absurd. Perhaps this type of reasoning is a result of the incessant, unfounded, and dubious proclivity of modern-day accusations of racism.
I know many, because of the abundance of misinformation, will scoff at these facts. But for any who value veracity, look it up. The age of the internet has made contemporary source material replete. (Which may be much of the reason historians have begun bowing to the truth. It is difficult to promote falsities in the light.)
Strangely enough, in light of certain historical inaccuracies, Beilein, gives a fair assessment of the bushwhacker. He is often brutal with their brutalities, but fair handed in the reasons for their violence and the acknowledgement that much of the bushwhackers’ actions could have been volatile reaction to union atrocities.
All in all, Bushwhackers is a good read and well worth the time. Much can be gleaned of the guerrillas, their attitudes, their lives, families and homes as well as the reasons for their actions, acceptable or not under the microscope of “modern” psychoanalysis.
With the caveat of caution on certain historical assumptions, I highly recommend Bushwhackers.
If we look at it for what it is, rather than distorting, twisting or imposing 21st century reasoning upon it, history will teach us much of who we were, who we are, and who we have the potential of becoming. ( )