(Vanity) Recommendations For Books on the "Civil War"/War Between The States

[stainlessbanner]

Lincoln set the cogs in motion for his war. No interference from Congress, from the Cabinet, nor from a highly regarded commission from the South would change his mind.

The result of his unwillingness to open communications proved costly for all Americans.

[Non-Sequitur]

Try “Lincoln and the Decision For War: The Northern Response to Secession” by Russell McClintock

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln set the cogs in motion for his war.

So you say.

No interference from Congress, from the Cabinet, nor from a highly regarded commission from the South would change his mind.

Congress was not is session, the Cabinet approved the resupply of Sumter, and your 'highly regarded commission' was there to deliver an ultimatum.

But I would point out that that Davis took the South to war over Sumter with the same level of intervention and the same cabinet approval that Lincoln had. That is to say, none and with opposition from some cabinet members.

[x]

So, I see that you are conceding the point of the origin of the war as affixed by the United States Congress.

I'm not conceding anything, except maybe that you have some sort of cognitive problem, and don't understand what I said.

I see also that you are conceding the irrelevancy of both the articles you referenced.

The webpages I referenced were the ones that contained the quotes that you cited, so if they're irrelevant it hurts your case, not mine.

I see also that you are conceding the fact that war was not the inevitable consequence of Charleston's defense of its harbor.

You shoot at the American flag, and trouble follows. That's about as inevitable as things get on earth. What don't you follow, Doris?

[GOP_Raider]

Thanks, I’ll check Amazon tonight to see if I can get it there.

[PeaRidge]

Of course my point was that your contention that the official start of the war was something other than Lincoln's order of blockade, is completely false. You then accused me of a cognitive problem for my contention.

However it does appear that you are completely wrong.Consider the following:

Here and Here and Here and Here and Here and Here and Here and Hereand if these are not enough, then this should convince you. Here

Enjoy your read and your new cognitive state.

[x]

Your own sources point out that hostilities had already begun when Lincoln ordered a blockade.

Sixty years later, the Supreme Court sustained the blockade of the Southern ports instituted by Lincoln in April 1861 at a time when Congress was not in session. Congress had subsequently ratified Lincoln's action, so that it was unnecessary for the Court to consider the constitutional basis of the President's action in the absence of congressional authorization, but the Court nonetheless approved, five-to-four, the blockade order as an exercise of Presidential power alone, on the ground that a state of war was a fact. "The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact." Your Own Source

We were already at war when Lincoln authorized the blockade. The president had to "meet" the war that had already "presented itself."

Taking the declaration of the blockade as the beginning of the war was merely an arbitrary and formal way of fixing a date. Hostilities, as your own sources state, had already begun.

If there were any doubts about your capabilities, posting links to what's essentially the same document four or five times doesn't dissolve them.

[GOP_Raider]

Try “Lincoln and the Decision For War: The Northern Response to Secession”

You think this would be a good book to see a North/South contrast and comparison with something like "Notes on Southern Wealth and Northern Profits" for example?

[GOP_Raider]

If some of you will kindly forgive me for re-pinging some of you to this thread, I got a chance to watch Ken Burns' documentary "The Civil War". Further, since a few of you mentioned the name of Shelby Foote and his prominence in that film, I ran acrossed a collection of Foote's comments on the War on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-szx8DJinBk

First off if Foote writes the way he speaks in that film, I can't wait to get his trilogy. But Burns being Burns, he left me with more questions than answers and with the blessing of the great Admin Moderator, I'd like to post them in another vanity post. I'll re-ping some of you in a few days.

Thanks again to everyone who posted in this thread. I really appreciate it.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I would be interested in the ping to your new thread.

[stainlessbanner]

I enjoyed the thread Raider, thanks for posting and pinging us.

I lost interest in Burns when he skews off into the racism bit. Though I have not seen them, his Jazz and Baseball productions have the same predictable slant (so I'm told). Burns won acclaim as being one of the first "comprehensive" works on the WBTS to include rare WBTS images.

However, if you enjoy Shelby Foote, check out the audio readings by him - fantastic narratives with that muddy mississippy accent.

[GOP_Raider]

I lost interest in Burns when he skews off into the racism bit.

That more than anything else confused me about the whole thing and made it rather inconsistent. But the entire film left me with more questions than answers so hopefully I can get some help from y'all.

(That is, if a native Idahoan is permitted to say "y'all" :) ).

[stainlessbanner]

You've got the y'all drawl.

If there is one thing I've learned in studying the WBTS, it's one could spend a lifetime discovering the different aspects of that period. So many areas of interest: economics, politics, legislation, military tactics, military strategy, first-hand accounts, periodicals, weaponry, religion, soldier's life, life on the home-front, etc. Much of the new research is trending towards "local" history.

Ping me to your new thread when it's time.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

“The Civil War” series did wonders for popular interest in the conflict, but Ken Burns himself is a liberal creep. I once heard him myself once Robert E. Lee to Hitler. A colleague I work with once had to chaffeur him to some event. He said Burns was a pompous ass.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Dod! Second “once” = “compare”. I’m still asleep this morning.

[PeaRidge]

Pardon the delay in getting back to you. None of what you present changes the fact that the United States Congress affixed the beginning of the war as the declaration of blockade by Lincoln.

Hostilities had been evident ever since John Brown's raid, and included the Star of the West, the events at Pensacola and Charleston. But nothing was causing a formal declaration of war until Lincoln acted.

Nothing you say or present changes that fact.