(Part 3) Best us civil war history books according to redditors
We found 767 Reddit comments discussing the best us civil war history books. We ranked the 298 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 41-60. You can also go back to the previous section.
53. The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, And The Triumph Of Anglo-America
2 mentions
You should pick up a copy of The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem. It's entirely focused on this debate and how/when the battle flag went from symbolizing a "heritage" to "hate," I'll add that the author is also very objective so it shouldn't offend too many people. To cut to the chase, it went from being a kitschy t-shirt you picked up on your vacation to the redneck rivera to symbolizing hate when racist organizations started adopting it as a part of their identity. Think of the swastika, what comes to mind? Nazis right? Well that really stinks for Buddhists and Native Americans who had been using that symbol for hundreds of years prior to Hitler but, for most people, it's Nazi ideology that is conjured up when seeing it - even though the Nazi symbol is sometimes a backwards version of many of it's other representations. It's the same thing, of course the image we conjure is not the confederate flag the but a battle flag meant to symbolize where confederate regiments were during a battle, lest they accidentally start firing on each other - which did happen. Most people don't realize that it was not the official flag, meaning it was never intended to be a symbol of the confederacy. It's also not "the stars and bars," that's a different flag altogether.
Anyway, the book I suggested was probably one of the better books required for a defeat and memory course I took a few years ago. If you're super gung-ho about the flag representing your heritage (which it seems that you are) then you should certainly pick it up. Born and raised in the South as well as my mom's family going all the way back to pre-Civil War it helped me understand my own heritage as well and perhaps made me a little more sympathetic to the view that some people take of the flag as a symbol heritage even though I believe that symbols must be read within a contemporary context, which, for the flag, is hate.
But the U.S. Civil war did devolve into a protracted guerrilla war.
The guerrilla war led directly to the establishment of Jim Crow. Between 1865 and 1877 when Federal troops left the south under a deal (known as the compromise of 1877) to end the contested election of 1876, there was constant if not always armed opposition to Scallywags (Southerners who supported reconstruction), carpetbaggers (Northerners who came to the South in support of reconstruction) and black political leaders who attempted to run the South and preserve freed blacks basic civil rights.
For example, in 1874 fighting broke out in Arkansas in what is known as the Brooks-Baxter War where radical Republicans and Democrats fought over the rightful winner of the 1874 governor's election. The defeat of the Republicans led to the end of the reconstruction era in Arkansas. That same year Democrats attacked radical Republicans in New Orleans in the Battle of Liberty Place which also led to the end of reconstruction in Louisiana.
Then there's the emergence of the Klu Klux Klan, a loose network of guerrilla warriors (today we might even call them terrorists), that was formed in Tennessee in 1866 and engaged in a sustained campaign of bombing, political assassinations, lynchings, voter intimidation and other actions to wrest control of the South from radical republicans and return control of political institutions to white Democrats. The federal government responded to Klan violence with the Enforcement acts, which allowed the federal government to intervene if black civil rights were being violated. The Enforcement Act of 1871 is known informally as the "Klu Klux Klan" law. The Klan was eventually defeated and a different Klan emerged in the early 20th century.
In the end, the sustained guerrilla campaign was a success. Radical republicans were purged from the state government, black voting rights were eliminated and white Democrats would have basically unchallenged control in the South until 1965, when passage of the Voting Rights Act finally resulted in the registration of millions of black voters in the South.
A good book to read about Southern violence after reconstruction is called The Bloody Shirt: Terror After Appomatox
The difference is that these memorials were not just about remembering the past. If they were, then they would have gone up in the 1870's or 1880's when reconstruction ended. These statues went up during the next generation (2), why? As a celebration. These monuments were erected by the children and grandchildren of confederates who felt vindicated that their family's historic battle in defense of the social order was right. They felt that the North had instigated an unjust war, they felt that the North had tried to control the South during reconstruction and insult the South by forcing legal equality between the races upon them in spite of what they felt were clear mental and moral inequities between races (3, "The monument typifies the vindication of Mr. Davis and the cause of the Confederacy... the leading inscription being "Deo Vindice" (God will vindicate)."). And they felt that with the destruction of the reconstruction and the rise of Jim Crow that they, the righteous and godly sons and daughters of the glorious but doomed confederacy, had finally won.
These statues were monuments not only to the honor of the dead, but also to the ideals that the CSA had fought for (4, "UDC [United Daughters of the Confederacy] members made the Lost Cause a movement about vindication as well as memorialization."). They were explicit endorsements of racism and have been a constant reminder to the black community of it's second-class status since they went up in the early 1900's. That's why this is different than a 9-11 memorial: memorials to 9-11 don't serve to dignify slavery and Jim Crow. These statues do, and that's why the blm wants them gone AND is why white nationalists get their jimmies knotted when they fall.
**EDIT Some Sauces:
1: A great response to a question about the history of these monuments by Mr. Zhukov himself from yesterday, outlining changing roles of these monuments thru the 1910's but not including the civil rights movement. I got a source or two from here.
2: SPLC monument timeline
3: Miller, James I.D. A Guide Into the South p 382
4: Cox, Karen. Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture (New Perspectives on the History of the South)
I don't know enough to answer the other points, but as to the importance of slavery, you may want to look at Alexander Stephens's "Cornerstone" speech:
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
James Henry Hammond on the mudsill is also useful.
The Confederate Constitution itself makes clear the importance of slavery:
"(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
"Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired . . .
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due."
"(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."
For more primary sources, I'm a big fan of William Gienapp's The Civil War and Reconstruction. It's been a while since I've read it, but you'll find plenty of pre-war discussion about slavery in there.
EDIT: I should add that he may be making the case that it was not a moral opposition to slavery which led to the war, but rather a dispute over economic systems. There's much better evidence to make that case. For that, see Lincoln's speeches about free labor. My assumption, however, is that your associate is trying to downplay the importance of slavery altogether, which, if that is the case, is patently incorrect.
Slaves originated from a variety of places and were brought over by a variety of European nations. Different parts of the country imported slaves from different areas as well. Some of them would have already known English (or Dutch, French, etc) from prior plantations in the West Indies, some of them would not speak a word. I think the first slaves in New York were creoles, so they would have spoken English with no trouble. The Carolinas brought slaves mainly from Barbados, as another example.
Assuming we're talking about someone captured with no prior contact to Europeans, the explanation given by Ira Berlin in Many Thousands Gone is that it depends on the task. If you're being sent to work rice or cotton, it doesn't matter if you speak the language. You just worked and struggled on. If you're a carpenter, horsemen, driver, or other complex task you're going to be exposed to the language more and picking it up from the people around you.
Importing slaves into America was banned in 1807 because of fear about the rising population of slaves. By the time the Civil War came around they would all have been born on American soil and fluent in English.
You're probably thinking of William Frassanito's Gettysburg: A Journey In Time and subsequent books. Frassanito has written extensively on Civil War photography, and based on his findings the way the gun, hat, etc are placed in this photo it is most certainly staged. Many Civil War era photographers were interested in making images they could weave into a human interest story which would in turn sell more photos, albums of their work, etc. http://www.amazon.com/Gettysburg-Journey-William-A-Frassanito/dp/0939631970
I recently read a book called Nothing Like It in the World about the construction of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads. Fascinating; I highly recommend it. Other interesting TIL tidbits:
I have some experience in this area, having once been involved with a group of short story writers that worked on the anthologies in Eric Flint’s "Ring of Fire" series (http://www.amazon.com/Ring-of-Fire/lm/R27BF7HO8G45VW - where a mining town in West Virginia is transported back to 1632 and kicks off the American Revolution about a hundred and fifty years earlier). A lot of discussion went on about how to bootstrap technologies. Now, this mining town started with more infrastructure (it’s based on a real town, circa 2000), but a Marine Expeditionary Unit has a logistics combat element to keep everything supplied and running. That would include things like heavy equipment, machine tools, and generators. In terms of manpower, it’s safe to assume that some of the officers are trained engineers and there are machinists and various other technical specialists among the enlisted men. So, you have the tools to make tools and the people with the expertise to operate those tools (surprisingly, you can build "precision" machine tools from relatively little - http://www.lindsaybks.com/dgjp/djgbk/series/index.html).
Goldsworthy is correct that it would take many months or years to reproduce even bulky analogues to their current equipment. The vacuum process needed to make make a Edison light bulb or a vacuum tube (no more transistors for ten to twenty years or integrated circuits for fifty…) by itself is a pain in the ass. It’ll take three to five years to figure that one out, as an example. If they wish to maintain a technical edge in the long term, it would behoove them to conserve resources and redirect as much of it as possible into bootstrapping an industrial and technical base.
And that sets up the dilemma. With survival being the immediate need, the best short term tactical course is to remain mobile, but remaining mobile means either expending or abandoning the resources that give you a vital edge (and it would likely strike your average Marine as rather stupid to expend gas and bullets “in a few days” anyway). So, the other option is to hunker down, dig in, and fortify. Expend a minimum of resources to obtain a psychological advantage over the enemy (read: scare the shit out of them) to discourage them from attacking you as long as possible. That gives you time (hopefully) to resupply, but as you’re conserving resources, you lose mobility. You then go about the business of establishing contact with indigenous populations (plenty around that would love to throw off Roman rule) to trade for raw materials (as well as to obtain vital intelligence). Anything running off diesel can be modified to run on vegetable oil. Gasoline engines can be modified to run on methane (fermenting animal dung). But likely, much of your heavy equipment is going to be cannibalized for other purposes, so you’re focus is on maintaining man-portable weaponry.
But the Marines also have vital "force multipliers" (the fruit of centuries of development in military doctrine) outside of their raw technical advantages: centralized all-source intelligence gathering ("The Secret War for the Union" - http://www.amazon.com/dp/0395901367 - tells the story of how vital such intelligence gathering can be), a command staff, a more flexible hierarchy, etc. They also have advantages of technique in areas like medicine. On the flip side, the Romans have some clear advantages (other than numbers): established networks for transportation, communication, logistics, and intelligence, as well as better knowledge of the terrain; physical, human, and otherwise.
As for the Roman world, circa 23 BC, the state of philosophy during that period--Epicurean, Stoic, neo-Platonic, Aristotelian, and otherwise--would surprise most moderns with the level of sophistication and depth in discussions of metaphysics and the nature of reality. In fact, it was the reintroduction and synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy in the medieval universities of the Latin West that catalyzed the rise of modern science. The ancients weren't dumb (smarter than us, in some ways). Fargosucks was fairly close to the mark.
And what would psychologically motivate the Marines? In the short to mid-term, group survival. All they have is each other and they'll be fighting for each other, as soldiers always have. But like Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation, they're commanders will realize that they have to give their men more reason to fight, an ultimate objective to work toward. A Marine officer familiar with history might suggest restoring the Republic, the Rome of Cincinnatus and Scipio, not of Caesar. It's a recognition that Rome was a civilizing and stabilizing force in the West, better than much of the barbarism that surrounded it, but it was once and could again be better.
That is a really fascinating graphic.
It would also be interesting to compare this to uses of the Confederate flag. It's been a while since I read it, but The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem gives an interesting look at the the history of the flag and how it's been used over the years.
> John Coski reveals the flag's origins as one of many banners unfurled on the battlefields of the Civil War. He shows how it emerged as the preeminent representation of the Confederacy and was transformed into a cultural icon from Reconstruction on, becoming an aggressively racist symbol only after World War II and during the Civil Rights movement. We gain unique insight into the fine line between the flag's use as a historical emblem and as an invocation of the Confederate nation and all it stood for.
>Really ? Can you give me one example where in any social science women are treated as the majority group.
academia is much larger than social science.
here is one example:
>The Majority Finds Its Past: Placing Women in History
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Majority-Finds-Its-Past-Placing/dp/0807856061/
Another which talks about demographics which is a social science... Any form of geography that deals with demographics is a social science and will talk about statistics and women are in fact a statistical majority in the UK.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11475-eng.htm
>In the statistical sense it is definitely true. Feel free to look at the number of women in position in power. I think you mean that numerically women are not a minority. Which is true. But when people talk about minorities in the context of social groups, it almost never means in a numerical sense.
Nobody mentioned women in power. They were only mentioned as a percentage of population. If you want to say women are a minority of MPs, CEOs etc, then that is true, but you MUST specify the specific situation. Just to say women are a minority generally implies to most people in terms of total population, which is not true in the UK.
>I think you mean that numerically women are not a minority
Of course I do, people in this country do, I don't think I know anyone in my social or professional life who doesn't use minority to use statistical minority (I did a STEM PhD).
>But when people talk about minorities in the context of social groups, it almost never means in a numerical sense.
Outside of certain social sciences (not including geography) it is uncommon for people to do that.
>Everybody that would discuss this with any BASIC KNOWLEDGE would understand that it's perfectly valid to describe women as minority group. Give that you apparently find Oxford reliable may I suggest the dictionary of sociology
Basic knowledge of sociology as used by a particular part of the field..... Outside of that field, people would not get what your are saying as most people only deal with statistic majorities.
It seems the term minority has been used to equate/compare women to statistical minority groups. As someone who deals with numbers on a regular basis, this terminology is rather counter intuitive. It is strange to use it when the exact opposite is true statistically.
Except it didn't take 400 years. Slaves fought back from the very beginning. You should read Many Thousands Gone if you're genuinely interested.
This was asked about a year ago: see here
I'll reccomend again the book I pushed there: The Cause of All Nations by Don Doyle
Really cool that you're bringing that up! I've recently read this book https://www.amazon.com/Field-Blood-Violence-Congress-Civil/dp/0374154775
It completely changed my perspective on the mythical civility of "the old times" vis-a-vis the current times.
A favorite of mine that I have read several times over is Landscape Turned Red by Stephen W. Sears. It's about Antietam and I always have a hard time putting it down.
On top of the link provided by /carpenter I'd say that Intelligence played its part and much of this intelligence was linked to the Pinkerton agency. I recommend reading a quite interesting, and probably unique, book titled "The secret war for the Union". Relates all the intelligence efforts and sources of the Army of the Potomac with each of its commanding generals; by Intelligence I mean all intelligence in military terms, from agents, to scouts, use of cavalry for info gathering, balloons etc.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-War-Union-Intelligence/dp/0395901367
Effectively all of this is wrong. All black people, even in the south, were not slaves. There were even black slave owning families in the south. It is also not even remotely true that only blacks were slaves--though it's fair enough as a generalization.
You're not defending history from revision, this is just bad history.
Skilled slaves in the south could free themselves.
Former slave William Ellison actually became one of the largest slave owners in South Carolina. He sharpened cotton gin blades from as far away as Texas. The book.
I've visited his house, as well as Dr. Anderson's house (his former owner) next door. Fascinating stuff.
Glad I could spur some interest. Douglas's book is actually out of copyright protection and available online here. There's also an online version of Lee's Recollections and Letters
Basically, Lee is the ultimate victim of revisionist history and guilt by association.
Lee is publicly known more than Davis, and therefore becomes the defacto leader and face of the Confederacy, according to both the lessor educated, or people who try to simplify the war as solely about slavery. Since most people automatically have a simplified negative connotation of the Confederacy and what it stood for, they assume Lee must be responsible, or at least was fighting specifically for, all of the negative things commonly associated with the Confederacy. This is perpetuated by people defending Lee, followed by others (like the asshole above) contending that to defend Lee is to defend slavery- end of story. Repeat.
Two problems with this. (Really three, but I'm not getting into "The civil war wasn't fought over slavery," as a whole.) The first is that it presumes to know Lee's reason for choosing to fight for Virginia. And two, when people do judge Lee's wrongdoings, they don't judge them against the standard of the time, or even against Lincoln's/Grant's/Sherman's wrongdoings.
Lee was adamantly against the war and succession, and only resigned the Union Army when he was asked if he would lead Union troops against Southerners. No matter what people think the civil war was fought over, Lee honestly saw it as the Union planning aggression against the State he loved, and as the unlawful "teaming up" of some states against others. Remember that this was when people identified much more with their State than with the US as a whole. And is when armies were still largely formed on the state level, and only then organized for national control. Lee didn't want to fight for the South, as much as he refused to fight against it.
Lee saw Slavery as immoral, and as a dying institution. But he was for a gentle and gradual release of slaves, preparing them for free life as educated, disciplined, and Christian. Lee was in charge of releasing his father-in-law's ~70 slaves, and released them before the conditions for release were met. He was for slaves staying in the US, as a just reward for the injustices they endured.
This was at a time when most US politicians in the North were arguing whether to send free slaves back to Africa or to Central America. Lincoln was actively trying to get the British to start new colonies specifically for this purpose. Article or Source. (This also contributes to show how much information Lincoln's followers destroyed after his death to protect his image and/or re-cast the war as solely about slavery. The correspondence had to be found in British Archives, as no record of it remained in the US. Also, few people realize that Jefferson Davis agreed to abolish slavery immediately in 1865, in return for either independence or for help from the British or French. But I digress.) Also see Back to Africa, which shows the colonization idea was popular both pre and post war. There are often implications the South was largely responsible, but it was a popular idea in the North as well, going back to at least the early 1800's. Really anywhere there was a large free black population in the US.
Back to Lee.
There is a reason Southerners choose him as a modern day role model, as opposed to others who may have fought for the same reasons. He is exemplary of "Southern Ideals" and the True Southern Gentleman. One of his most telling, yet least quoted, writings was his "Definition of a Gentleman," below. The collection of his letters can be a good place to read his opinions directly, without the need to read a whole book at once.
When you take away the presumption that Lee was fighting for slavery, add Lincoln's and Northerner's true view of blacks at the time, and then judge Lee by his own actions and words, you end up with a view that is quite contrary to what most people see.
Robert E. Lee’s Definition of a Gentleman:
The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys
certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman.
The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed,
the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly–
the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it
when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light.
The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong
he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget;
and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient
strength to let the past be but the past.
A true man of honor feels humbled when he cannot help humbling others.
"A Little Fifer's War Diary" is pretty great: https://archive.org/details/littlefiferswar00bardrich Regimental histories can be wonderful sources regarding the common soldier's experiences as well. John J. Pullen's "The 20th Maine" is one that immediately springs to mind: https://www.amazon.com/Twentieth-Maine-Chamberlain-Volunteer-Regiment/dp/0811735249. But if you have a particular unit in mind for your character, definitely look up any relevant regimental histories that might be available.
Richard Holfstradter has a good collection of the Lincoln Douglas debates.
Another great work published in 1963 that still applies today.
> The Majority Finds Its Past: Placing Women in History
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Majority-Finds-Its-Past-Placing/dp/0807856061/
May I guess you never read the book ? She was a radical socialist and feminist, with the title almost surely like this because it plays on the contradiction of women being a minority group despite being a numerical majority.
>Gerda Lerner. One of the most influential feminist historians, Lerner is often credited with being the first to offer college courses in women's history. Lerner was a giant in her field: she rose to prominence in the 1960s, a time of tremendous expansion in the field of history. During this time, social history became popular: increasingly historians began to pay attention to every-day people, including women, the African Americans, the poor, and other minorities, as opposed to the ''great men'' embodied in generals like Robert E. Lee. and politicians like Thomas Jefferson.
You can read maybe The Creation of Patriarchy :P To make sure that she would probably have no issue with describing women as a minority group and would surely understand.
>Of course I do, people in this country do, I don't think I know anyone in my social or professional life who doesn't use minority to use statistical minority (I did a STEM PhD).
Why do you use statistical majority, when you mean numerical majority ? This is the second time now and it's confusing me a bit. And again, sure you and your friends might use the colloquial definition of minority. Which is totally fine, but pretending that women can't be called a minority is just wrong and shows that you have no understanding of minority groups and the social sciences.
>Basic knowledge of sociology as used by a particular part of the field..... Outside of that field, people would not get what your are saying as most people only deal with statistic majorities.
Is what we are discussing right now related to the social sciences or more to numerics ? Also you are kinda not telling the truth when you talk people are dealing with statistic majorities. Because which groups are you dealing with ? Blonde people ? They are a statistical minority. Would you want to give me a list of minorities you are thinking of when you talk about minority ? Because I seriously doubt it coincides with "statistical minorities"
>It seems the term minority has been used to equate/compare women to statistical minority groups. As someone
No, it seems like you don't understand what minority groups are. Like most of society. The term comes from academia, and people just perverse the meaning.
It's a lie to claim people think of "statistical minorities" because then they would think of blonde people, brown eyed people, people with super high IQ, aristocrats, etc etc. There are many many people that you are almost surely not thinking about when talking about minorities. Maybe you mean ethnic minorities. Maybe.
>It is strange to use it when the exact opposite is true statistically.
It's stranger to use it in a way that's completely inconsistent. And ignores the history of the word. Even stranger to not know the multiple meanings of the word, and defend your ignorance like the problem is people who spent decades on this topic know less than you.
Hey! I found the book!
https://www.amazon.com/Twentieth-Maine-Chamberlain-Volunteer-Regiment/dp/0811735249
Nah, shit was violent pre-Civil War. One Congressman killed another in a duel. And there was regular "I will slit your throat" threats from Southerners to Northerners on the floor on Congress.
\> In The Field of Blood, Joanne B. Freeman recovers the long-lost story of physical violence on the floor of the U.S. Congress. Drawing on an extraordinary range of sources, she shows that the Capitol was rife with conflict in the decades before the Civil War. Legislative sessions were often punctuated by mortal threats, canings, flipped desks, and all-out slugfests. When debate broke down, congressmen drew pistols and waved Bowie knives. One representative even killed another in a duel. Many were beaten and bullied in an attempt to intimidate them into compliance, particularly on the issue of slavery.
\> These fights didn’t happen in a vacuum. Freeman’s dramatic accounts of brawls and thrashings tell a larger story of how fisticuffs and journalism, and the powerful emotions they elicited, raised tensions between North and South and led toward war. In the process, she brings the antebellum Congress to life, revealing its rough realities―the feel, sense, and sound of it―as well as its nation-shaping import. Funny, tragic, and rivetingly told, The Field of Blood offers a front-row view of congressional mayhem and sheds new light on the careers of John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and other luminaries, as well as introducing a host of lesser-known but no less fascinating men. The result is a fresh understanding of the workings of American democracy and the bonds of Union on the eve of their greatest peril.
https://www.amazon.com/Field-Blood-Violence-Congress-Civil/dp/0374154775
Look, if you want to read a history of the Civil War, I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Reconstruction-Documentary-Collection/dp/039397555X/ref=sr_1_38?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413388195&sr=1-38
If you want to read a good story about the personal effects of that war on one antebellum woman, then read Gone With the Wind. Look, I know this issue raises hackles all around the neckbeard world, but you are taking fiction and trying to fit it in YOUR worldview. This is wrong. When you read about someone in fiction, the idea is for you to see things from THEIR worldview. If that is uncomfortable for you, then I suggest reading something else. However, if you want to push the limits of your mind and try to encompass more than just the historical fact, maybe delve into the psychology of a person who lived on the wrong side of that war, then I recommend reading this great story.
What is WC?
I watched some of the 9/11 video. Self-sacrifice is associated with goodness, but then the Islamic terrorists also practiced self-sacrifice, so self-sacrifice by itself isn't enough. Good judgement is also needed. Also, 2000 was still better than now. There probably were some good people at that time, it is only in the last few years that I have seen all traces of goodness disappear.
Romans 12:2 is something I quote to Christians all the time (at least I did when I dealt with them). Of course I wish Christians would follow this, but only traditional Anabaptists seem to. Mainstream Christianity is completely conformed to this age.
I haven't read "Night" by Elie Wiesel. I know enough about this topic since most of family died in the Holocaust and my father escaped from a Nazi work camp and then fought, blowing up German trains. Individuals can make the most difference when there is open war between good and evil, by siding with good. But when one is surrounded by ubiquitous evil, as in modern culture, it is much harder to make a difference.
Ancient Israel was a case of constant conflict between good and evil with good generally being the minority. Still, at least there always seemed to be at least one prophet of good, which is better than today.
Most of what Jesus says is consistent with the Old Testament, and his opinion of Solomon is no exception. Solomon clearly violated Deuteronomy 17:14-20.
I didn't write much about the New Testament because modern Christianity doesn't work. But here is one thing I wrote:
http://www.mikraite.org/Who-is-my-neighbor-tp481.html
About history, please don't waste your time on YouTube and on history books. Only original sources have value. Here are some books that you may find interesting:
https://www.amazon.com/Reformation-Reader-Primary-Texts-Introductions/dp/0800663101/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002GJGIDQ/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1607961806/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140444203/
https://www.amazon.com/002-American-History-Revolution-1765-1865/dp/0394705416/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394708423/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140455280/
To understand the world wars, probably the best book to read is Mein Kampf.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004LDLI0S/
Like with religion, one has to get as close to the source as possible in history to find truth.
Well, Antietem is easy to go to if you are in the area.
I went perhaps eight years ago (from VT, so it involved a long car ride and hotel expenses). Many fewer markers than Gettysburg, but it is by no means built up or spoiled in that way. However, I personally had some trouble understanding the picture, as presented by the markers, etc.
I just finished reading Sears's book, which I thought was excellent. I intend to visit again and I feel that now I would have a much better understanding of where people were coming from when they got to the cornfield, etc.
Read Gary Wills' Lincoln At Gettysburg, one of the best non-fiction books I have ever read. Wills claims, and supports, that Lincoln successfully set out to re-formulate the relationship between the American people and our government. If nothing else, it is a great example of how to really read a text.
http://www.amazon.com/Cousins-Wars-Religion-Politics-Anglo-America/dp/0465013708
Yes, they taught us that in the Early American History class I took, in some ways it was another civil war for the United Kingdom, or kind of a Vietnam with many sympathizers back in the United Kingdom.
There is a history of the English Civil War, American Revolution and American Civil War called the Cousins' Wars by Kevin Phillips
http://www.amazon.com/The-Cousins-Wars-Religion-Anglo-America/dp/0465013708
And hundreds of thousands fought to save it in the American Civil War.
"America is Ireland's refuge, Ireland's last hope. Destroy this republic and her hopes are blasted."
The Cause of All Nations: An International History of the American Civil War
I will recommend a single volume by way of answering your question:
The Causes of the Civil War edited by the late Kenneth M. Stampp. It contains many relevant primary source accounts (or excerpts therefrom) as well as interpretive secondary essays.
There is a lot going on in this question, but briefly, the state of historiography concerning the American Civil War in 1990 could best be described as being dominated by a neo-abolitionist interpretation that began gaining steam in the 1960s, and is perhaps best represented (in a 1990s context) by James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom published in 1988, around the same time that Ken Burn was preparing his documentary.
While I'm being reductionist here, neo-abolistionists were insistent upon returning to the narrative the singular importance of slavery, not simply for Southern desires to maintain it, but for the North's moral desire to see it vanquished as well. Much of this criticism was geared towards the revisionist scholars of the 30s and 40s who saw the Civil War as the product of a selfish, impulsive group of political elites who's inability to compromise resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and implicitly carried strong anti-war undertones. Kenneth Stammp's The Causes of the Civil War, which received a final revision in 1992, is a good source for understanding these transitions. It best represents the exact nature of the literature in 1990, and it is worth reading if you want to quickly familiarize yourself with these debates leading up to 1990. You can find it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Causes-Civil-War-Revised-Touchstone/dp/0671751557/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1458413862&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=ken+stampp+the+cause+of+the+civil+war
The second aspect of your question, I am little more unsure of. But I can say that Burn's documentary is basically in alignment with a neo-aboltionist interpretation, but those types of historical arguments are downplayed a bit in order to focus on the details of battles, personal struggle, courage, adversity, etc. Things that the average public would find more enjoyable to watch, and that approach certainly has it advantages/disadvantages.
By bringing up Shelby Foote, you are correct to speculate that perhaps Burn's documentary was already out of date before it was conceived of. To this I would say yes and no, predicated on my previous paragraph. Foote's work was for a general audience, is well researched, masterfully written and quite engaging. It really is not "argumentative," and is rather neutral in tone, in much the same way Burn's documentary is.
I'm not sure about the progression of historian's thoughts about Foote's work, but as someone who is engaged in the ACW scholarly community, most will praise his work for its engaging narrative, but are quick to point out its limitations as a scholarly source, and that the work is best suited for public consumption rather than academics.
On the other side though, many are resentful of the renewed public interest in the Civil War, because it gave rise to "civil war buffs," who are more interested in battlefield statistics than understanding the cultural implications of the war's outcome in relation to race, racism, slavery, etc. I remember at panel discussion about military history at the Southern Historical Society's annual meeting a few years, exploded into a heated debate about Civil War buffs in the classroom, and what to do about them.
While I did not address everything you asked, I hope this response helped a bit. And hopefully others can modify/or fill any gaps in my response.
Just read an awesome book called Lincoln at Gettysburg that outlines a lot of the political and cultural motivations that went into the Gettysburg Address. It also covers a lot about how Lincoln felt about the war at the time, and the language he used to describe it. Also check out The New York City Draft Riots. This book, in addition to telling a really interesting story about what happened those few days in New York in 1863, it also provides an interesting perspective of what Bernstein calls "The Lincoln Regime", and the centralization of federal Republican power during that time.
Anyone interested in this period of American history should definitely read Stephen Ambrose's "Nothing Like It In the World..." http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Like-World-Transcontinental-1863-1869/dp/0743203178
No we don't. While i disagree with the idea that we should have bought slaves, those who support it are basing it off the pragmatic belief that war should have been avoided at any cost.
/r/libertarian is the only subreddit that supports ending the new jim crow, which is the war on drugs. After segregation ended, the white power elite waged the war on drugs to keep blacks in the underclass. The war on drugs destroyed thousands of black families by removing fathers from households and engendered poverty by preventing blacks from working, leaving them relegated to low skill, low wage jobs once released. The prohibition of drugs also increased prices, which incentivized dealer-on-dealer murder and drug user crimes to fund addiction.
/r/libertarian supports the full legalization of drugs, unlike phony democrats who support policies that have destroyed the black community.
Occupational licensing laws and zoning laws are further legislation used to oppress blacks by keeping them in poverty.
Affirmative Action is a useless program that only creates superficial racial progress. It's primary beneficiaries are wealthy, upper middle class blacks. It's used by democrats to convince poor blacks into voting for a party that supports the war on drugs, zoning laws, and occupational licensing laws. Uncle Toms like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson promote affirmative action while ignoring the war on drugs.
These are excellent libertarian books on government-created institutional racism:
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
http://www.amazon.com/State-Against-Blacks-Walter-Williams/dp/0070703787/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398379041&sr=1-1&keywords=the+state+against+blacks
http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Ground-American-1950-1980-Anniversary/dp/0465042333/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398379056&sr=1-1&keywords=losing+ground
http://www.amazon.com/war-poor-Clarence-Buford-Carson/dp/B0006EZGDG/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398379099&sr=1-1&keywords=the+war+on+the+poor+clarence+carson
http://www.amazon.com/Poor-Policy-How-Government-Harms/dp/0813328241/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398379129&sr=1-1&keywords=poor+policy
http://www.amazon.com/Emancipating-Slaves-Enslaving-Free-Men/product-reviews/0812693124/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0
http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Jeffersons-Lost-Cause-Louisiana-ebook/dp/B001GIPLJU/ref=la_B001H6EODU_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398379235&sr=1-7