abidoodle's review against another edition
Was for a class but didn’t need the whole book so I read what was required, generally pretty boring and difficult to follow at times.
tallestbruce's review against another edition
5.0
If a person only reads on book about the causes and effects of the American Civil War this is the one.
patrickkanouse's review
5.0
A few years ago, I decided I wanted to read all of the Oxford History of the United States. Several volumes are highly regarded, so I started with them in chronological order. I found the first three of the series marvelous, particularly Robert Middlekauf's The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789.
In my last semester as a senior at Ball State University, the last final I took and called it a wrap was a Civil War class. The class used James McPherson's Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction. I thought that McPherson book well written and excellent.
Battle Cry of Freedom covers much of the same ground, though it is more narrowly focused--primarily by leaving out Reconstruction, which will be covered in as yet unpublished volume in the series.
This book is a straight-up history, though McPherson brings to bear a formidable knowledge and insight. Readable, the book's narrative arc is necessarily framed by the war itself, though McPherson takes pains to discuss the transformations occurring in America even then. Still, very little is said of the west.
The principle actors are treated with a measured response, and McPherson refuses to take the simple view of commanders and leaders. If you don't like your history full of descriptions of campaigns and battles, this book is not for you. If you are a Civil War buff, then this book deserves a place on your shelf for a larger narrative, though I doubt it will satisfy in technical and detailed information that more focused texts will bring.
I do praise McPherson though for holding firm to the cause of the Civil War. Many like to equivocate that the Civil War was fought over state's rights versus federal rights. In the larger picture this is a true statement, but this attempts to obfuscate the issue that the Civil War was about a state's right to retain slavery. The years building up the war witnessed continuing and bitter battles to ensure that representation in Congress (particularly the Senate) maintained an equal number of Senators from slave-holding states and from non-slave-holding states. Eventually, the center could not hold and war ensued. The southern states rebelled against the Union so that it could preserve a state's right to continue slavery. McPherson keeps this clear.
Well written with plenty of detail while maintaining a strong narrative, McPherson's book is an excellent read for a general overview of the Civil War.
In my last semester as a senior at Ball State University, the last final I took and called it a wrap was a Civil War class. The class used James McPherson's Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction. I thought that McPherson book well written and excellent.
Battle Cry of Freedom covers much of the same ground, though it is more narrowly focused--primarily by leaving out Reconstruction, which will be covered in as yet unpublished volume in the series.
This book is a straight-up history, though McPherson brings to bear a formidable knowledge and insight. Readable, the book's narrative arc is necessarily framed by the war itself, though McPherson takes pains to discuss the transformations occurring in America even then. Still, very little is said of the west.
The principle actors are treated with a measured response, and McPherson refuses to take the simple view of commanders and leaders. If you don't like your history full of descriptions of campaigns and battles, this book is not for you. If you are a Civil War buff, then this book deserves a place on your shelf for a larger narrative, though I doubt it will satisfy in technical and detailed information that more focused texts will bring.
I do praise McPherson though for holding firm to the cause of the Civil War. Many like to equivocate that the Civil War was fought over state's rights versus federal rights. In the larger picture this is a true statement, but this attempts to obfuscate the issue that the Civil War was about a state's right to retain slavery. The years building up the war witnessed continuing and bitter battles to ensure that representation in Congress (particularly the Senate) maintained an equal number of Senators from slave-holding states and from non-slave-holding states. Eventually, the center could not hold and war ensued. The southern states rebelled against the Union so that it could preserve a state's right to continue slavery. McPherson keeps this clear.
Well written with plenty of detail while maintaining a strong narrative, McPherson's book is an excellent read for a general overview of the Civil War.
ksull95's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
5.0
A fantastic and prosaic accounting of the American Civil War. McPherson does a great job of describing the major events and players without being too dry or academic.
gregbrown's review against another edition
5.0
Incredible, panoramic look at the Civil War that rightly spends over 250 pages before Fort Sumter examining the state of the country and factors that led to the conflict. Once the fighting starts it kinda drags with descriptions of the battles and either side freaking out or rejoicing at every loss or victory, but I suppose that’s more the fault of the actual history and its participants than McPherson. Would have liked to see a bit more about what was going on in California and out west during the war, but probably a subject better covered in the subsequent volume since it didn’t have any major causal influence on the course of the conflict.
lukescalone's review against another edition
4.0
South Carolina must be destroyed.
And so it was. As McPherson points out, the place that the Civil War began was effectively the place the War ended (ignoring Appomattox, where Robert E. Lee's armies did not stand a chance).
This book is dated. From my standpoint, the book misses out on critically important discussions that are important today but may not have been in the 1980s. Additionally, this book is actually two books. One book contained in here is the story of military tactics, generals, and the conduct of the war. The other book is a political history of the outbreak of the Civil War, political debates and contests, and legal processes. The latter book is subordinated in the interest of the former, and that's a damned shame because the actual conduct of battles are nowhere near as interesting as what occurred behind the scenes in both the Union and the Confederacy. At the same time, there is almost no discussion of social or cultural history here, and fascinating topics like the Constitutional Convention leading up to the passage of the 13th amendment are only given in bite-sized pieces. At least we learn plenty about the CSS Virginia and the USS Merrimack, I guess. I swear, if I have to read battlefield history of Shiloh or Antietam one more time, I'm going to shoot myself.
In McPherson's narrative, the war essentially began the moment with John Brown's heroic raid on Harper's Ferry. In the wake of outcry against John Brown's actions, it's a wonder that Abraham Lincoln managed to be elected president. In the wake of the Dred Scott decision, there was brought unrest about Lincoln's avowed policy of preventing the expansion of slavery into the territories, and his election pushed slaveowners to enact a virtual coup against the representative government of the United States. McPherson is clear here that the issue of slavery is why the Civil War started, and that brain-dead states-righters could not imagine a world without an institution that deprived the liberty of millions of people (more than half of the population of South Carolina, which was a cesspool of slaveholder treason).
The war proceeded here and there, sometimes the Union was successful--especially in the West--sometimes the Confederates were successful. There's some interesting discussion here about the wobbling of border states and pro-Union regions within the Confederacy--eastern Tennessee and the newly-formed state of West Virginia, in particular. There's some discussion of the start of Reconstruction in 1863, and there are also some interesting contrasts between Jefferson Davis and Lincoln. Lincoln was an outstanding wartime leader, Davis was a proto-fascist who was so deep in shit that it's a wonder that any gray matter existed between his ears. Black soldiers are given the respect that they deserve, as are prisoners of war.
For all intents and purposes, the war ended the moment that William Tecumseh Sherman's armies burned Atlanta. The march to the sea was, effectively, a cakewalk for Sherman's soldiers, and the campaign through South Carolina was a harder, but it ended in the complete and utter devastation of the South, as was absolutely and undeniably deserved. Lee didn't stand a chance, he knew that he'd be crushed should he be attacked on both sides, so he attempted to maneuver towards Tennessee. Lee's armies barely took their first steps before they were crushed by Ulysses S. Grant. And with that, Lee sued for peace. Davis fucked off to Texas, where he continued to rally against the Union, claiming that the war could still be won. Needless to say, Davis was an absolute clown.
I wish that McPherson spent much more time talking about women, the "homefront," and African Americans who weren't soldiers. These topics were already being discussed in the 1980s, although they were not yet in vogue. Failing to do so is a missed opportunity, and it may have been useful to add a bit more information on these topics in the 2004 edition. There's also a really interesting philosophical discussion in the Afterword about Southern conceptions of "negative liberty" and the way that the Union attempted to supplant it with "positive liberty." The shift toward positive liberty was arrested with the end of Reconstruction, and did not emerge again until Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration and did not mature again until the Civil Rights Movement. I'm hoping that Richard White's subsequent volume covers this, as I crave more of it.
Needless to say, the only failure the Union had after the fall of Atlanta was that it did not smash the South hard enough. As a result, organizations like Daughters of the Confederacy and General Nathan Bedford Forrest's terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan, emerged and further transformed the South into a racist dystopia. I have no doubt that Confederate success would have devolved into military dictatorship and would have acted as a laboratory for testing out fascist policy in a North American context during the 20th century. Luckily, our universe managed to avoid that pathway.
In spite of all my complains, McPherson's book is riveting--a real page turner--and I enjoyed it on those grounds.
And so it was. As McPherson points out, the place that the Civil War began was effectively the place the War ended (ignoring Appomattox, where Robert E. Lee's armies did not stand a chance).
This book is dated. From my standpoint, the book misses out on critically important discussions that are important today but may not have been in the 1980s. Additionally, this book is actually two books. One book contained in here is the story of military tactics, generals, and the conduct of the war. The other book is a political history of the outbreak of the Civil War, political debates and contests, and legal processes. The latter book is subordinated in the interest of the former, and that's a damned shame because the actual conduct of battles are nowhere near as interesting as what occurred behind the scenes in both the Union and the Confederacy. At the same time, there is almost no discussion of social or cultural history here, and fascinating topics like the Constitutional Convention leading up to the passage of the 13th amendment are only given in bite-sized pieces. At least we learn plenty about the CSS Virginia and the USS Merrimack, I guess. I swear, if I have to read battlefield history of Shiloh or Antietam one more time, I'm going to shoot myself.
In McPherson's narrative, the war essentially began the moment with John Brown's heroic raid on Harper's Ferry. In the wake of outcry against John Brown's actions, it's a wonder that Abraham Lincoln managed to be elected president. In the wake of the Dred Scott decision, there was brought unrest about Lincoln's avowed policy of preventing the expansion of slavery into the territories, and his election pushed slaveowners to enact a virtual coup against the representative government of the United States. McPherson is clear here that the issue of slavery is why the Civil War started, and that brain-dead states-righters could not imagine a world without an institution that deprived the liberty of millions of people (more than half of the population of South Carolina, which was a cesspool of slaveholder treason).
The war proceeded here and there, sometimes the Union was successful--especially in the West--sometimes the Confederates were successful. There's some interesting discussion here about the wobbling of border states and pro-Union regions within the Confederacy--eastern Tennessee and the newly-formed state of West Virginia, in particular. There's some discussion of the start of Reconstruction in 1863, and there are also some interesting contrasts between Jefferson Davis and Lincoln. Lincoln was an outstanding wartime leader, Davis was a proto-fascist who was so deep in shit that it's a wonder that any gray matter existed between his ears. Black soldiers are given the respect that they deserve, as are prisoners of war.
For all intents and purposes, the war ended the moment that William Tecumseh Sherman's armies burned Atlanta. The march to the sea was, effectively, a cakewalk for Sherman's soldiers, and the campaign through South Carolina was a harder, but it ended in the complete and utter devastation of the South, as was absolutely and undeniably deserved. Lee didn't stand a chance, he knew that he'd be crushed should he be attacked on both sides, so he attempted to maneuver towards Tennessee. Lee's armies barely took their first steps before they were crushed by Ulysses S. Grant. And with that, Lee sued for peace. Davis fucked off to Texas, where he continued to rally against the Union, claiming that the war could still be won. Needless to say, Davis was an absolute clown.
I wish that McPherson spent much more time talking about women, the "homefront," and African Americans who weren't soldiers. These topics were already being discussed in the 1980s, although they were not yet in vogue. Failing to do so is a missed opportunity, and it may have been useful to add a bit more information on these topics in the 2004 edition. There's also a really interesting philosophical discussion in the Afterword about Southern conceptions of "negative liberty" and the way that the Union attempted to supplant it with "positive liberty." The shift toward positive liberty was arrested with the end of Reconstruction, and did not emerge again until Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration and did not mature again until the Civil Rights Movement. I'm hoping that Richard White's subsequent volume covers this, as I crave more of it.
Needless to say, the only failure the Union had after the fall of Atlanta was that it did not smash the South hard enough. As a result, organizations like Daughters of the Confederacy and General Nathan Bedford Forrest's terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan, emerged and further transformed the South into a racist dystopia. I have no doubt that Confederate success would have devolved into military dictatorship and would have acted as a laboratory for testing out fascist policy in a North American context during the 20th century. Luckily, our universe managed to avoid that pathway.
In spite of all my complains, McPherson's book is riveting--a real page turner--and I enjoyed it on those grounds.
snarf137's review against another edition
OK I probably should not have listened to this as an audiobook. While the previous book in the series was less war-focused, this one (obviously) could not help but be filled with military tactics, maneuvers, and battles. I learned a lot about the origins of the war, the lead-up, and the cultural changes that occured as the war progressed, but I wish that I had referred to some maps and diagrams for the substantive portions of military history. I also had trouble keeping track of all the commanders and disparate characters, but that is hardly the book's fault. I finished the last 200 pages in ebook format, which greatly increased my enjoyment of this installment.
Despite my gripes, it was well written, detailed, and encompassing. It is a solid introduction into the history of the civil war.
Despite my gripes, it was well written, detailed, and encompassing. It is a solid introduction into the history of the civil war.
fetterov's review against another edition
5.0
This book was just the kind of high-level narrative and analysis about the Civil War era that I was looking for. McPherson did an excellent job setting up secession and the Civil War, describing the war itself without getting too bogged down in military mumbo jumbo, and describing how the political and home fronts changed during the war. It seemed to me a fair and even analysis of the war, and never shied away from saying what the war was about: slavery (no Lost Cause nonsense here). If the book was lacking in any respects, it could have used a bit more description about what life was like for civilians during the war. However, at 800+ pages and so much material to get through, I can see why civilians got the short end of the stick. All that said, this is one of my favorite history books. It was easy to read and follow, covered a ton of ground, and left me yearning for more reading about the Civil War. Battle Cry of Freedom is a classic for a reason.
roughly40cats's review against another edition
4.0
https://onmybookshelf.substack.com/p/omb-weekly-reader-no-2
michaelsj10's review against another edition
5.0
Best single volume of the American Civil War out there.