Re: In Remembrance
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:19 am
Great recommendations. I haven't read either of the books you mention, although I do sort of have The Killer Angels in the back of my mind as something I should read. I don't doubt that the experience of the book goes beyond that of the movie. So often that is the case.
I only recently got into reading about Lincoln (he wasn't so much an icon in Mississippi when I was growing up, LOL), but I did read a very interesting intellectual biography of him last winter, called Redeemer President. It wasn't new, just something I picked up at the library. I guy named Guelzo wrote it. I found it fascinating, because he did a good job of reconstructing the intellectual influences on Lincoln during his formative years. I guess I hadn't quite realized before just how intellectually engaged Americans on the frontier were. They were very aware of their distance from centers of learning and strove to keep up with the new ideas of their day through many periodicals, societies for discussion, etc. They put us to shame in that way.
I also got hold of the new biography of Mary Lincoln by Catherine Clinton (which was actually what I was looking for when I got Redeemer President; the Mrs. Lincoln bio was hard to come by at first). That got me on a kick of reading about the era. I followed up with a history of Southern women called Scarlett Doesn't Live Here Anymore; The Children's Civil War; and The Road to Disunion (Vol. 1). I never went back to read Vol 2, though I meant to. The Road to Disunion 1, by a man named Freehling, started in colonial times and ran up to 1850. It was densely written and not a quick read, though it was very, very informative to me.
I have always preferred reading about the Revolutionary era because it is a happier time in my imagination. The Civil War was a tragedy for all Americans, but it was especially tragic for the South, including my own ancestors. I do think that Shelby Foote makes a provocative comment in that Civil War series, when he points out that the Civil War is what made us one as a nation. He makes the point by discussing the grammar of "The United States," as I'm sure you recall--how that plural phrase was construed as a plural (the United States are) prior to the war, and as a singular (the United States is) afterward.
I only recently got into reading about Lincoln (he wasn't so much an icon in Mississippi when I was growing up, LOL), but I did read a very interesting intellectual biography of him last winter, called Redeemer President. It wasn't new, just something I picked up at the library. I guy named Guelzo wrote it. I found it fascinating, because he did a good job of reconstructing the intellectual influences on Lincoln during his formative years. I guess I hadn't quite realized before just how intellectually engaged Americans on the frontier were. They were very aware of their distance from centers of learning and strove to keep up with the new ideas of their day through many periodicals, societies for discussion, etc. They put us to shame in that way.
I also got hold of the new biography of Mary Lincoln by Catherine Clinton (which was actually what I was looking for when I got Redeemer President; the Mrs. Lincoln bio was hard to come by at first). That got me on a kick of reading about the era. I followed up with a history of Southern women called Scarlett Doesn't Live Here Anymore; The Children's Civil War; and The Road to Disunion (Vol. 1). I never went back to read Vol 2, though I meant to. The Road to Disunion 1, by a man named Freehling, started in colonial times and ran up to 1850. It was densely written and not a quick read, though it was very, very informative to me.
I have always preferred reading about the Revolutionary era because it is a happier time in my imagination. The Civil War was a tragedy for all Americans, but it was especially tragic for the South, including my own ancestors. I do think that Shelby Foote makes a provocative comment in that Civil War series, when he points out that the Civil War is what made us one as a nation. He makes the point by discussing the grammar of "The United States," as I'm sure you recall--how that plural phrase was construed as a plural (the United States are) prior to the war, and as a singular (the United States is) afterward.