James M. McPherson

After having managed, barely, to get halfway through James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, I put the book aside in wonder. And, unfortunately, I don’t mean that in a favorable way.
Neither eloquent nor impartial, lacking any new hypotheses and perspectives, this work falls abysmally short of what one should expect from a Pulitzer Prize winner.
A dry read that is laced with sanctimonious regurgitation of political agendas that were made with hindsight many decades after the Civil War. McPherson portrays – if he does at all - the characters of the era (leading men and lower ranks alike) like long dried-up gingerbread men and to add insult to injury the majority of such characters are related to the Union. There is also noticeable “cherry-picking” involved in his scheme. Clearly, in such instances when he writes about notables that fought for the South, he selects the most infamous ones, and then spends his mediocre literary talent expanding - even carefully trotting out their most damning character flaws and recorded actions - of which there were many.
A less than sophisticated writing style one can forgive but should not a writer of a serious work of any history abstain from such subterfuge?

Most readers don’t seem to care and neither does the association awarding the Pulitzer Prize. At least, they did not in 1989. Well, the reasons completely elude me.
This is even more puzzling as there are infinitely better works out there like Shelby Foote’s equally eloquent and exhaustive Narrative of the Civil War though offering a somewhat narrower perspective does include intriguing new perspectives. Also much more neutral in tone is Controversies and Commanders: Dispatches from the Army of the Potomac by Stephen Sears. I get it, the writer is an educated, smart man but in this here case - who wrote this here book then?… (altro)

(2008)Very good concentration by McPherson on Lincoln's hands on management of the Civil War. His struggle to find a competent and collaborative General in Chief of the Army persisted all through the war until he finally puts Grant in that position. PW-Without Lincoln not only would we have not survived as a country, but the war would not have kept on track and finally won by the Union.Given the importance of Lincoln's role as commander-in-chief to the nation's very survival, says McPherson, this role has been underexamined. McPherson (Battle Cry of Freedom), the doyen of Civil War historians, offers firm evidence of Lincoln's military effectiveness in this typically well-reasoned, well-presented analysis. Lincoln exercised the right to take any necessary measures to preserve the union and majority rule, including violating longstanding civil liberties (though McPherson considers the infringements milder than those adopted by later presidents). As McPherson shows, Lincoln understood the synergy of political and military decision-making; the Emancipation Proclamation, for instance, harmonized the principles of union and freedom with a strategy of attacking the crucial Confederate resource of slave labor. Lincoln's commitment to linking policy and strategy made him the most hands-on American commander-in-chief; he oversaw strategy and offered operational advice, much of it shrewd and perceptive. Lincoln may have been an amateur of war, but McPherson successfully establishes him as America's greatest war leader.… (altro)