Thomas F. (hardtack) -
I've read several books about correspondents of the American Civil War. It is important to read several history books on a subject so as to determine what the real story is, as authors don't always agree with each other. It's interesting to see how these correspondents reported the news and with what bias they reported it. In many ways, specific Civil War-era newspapers were biased in ways that specific news channels are biased today.
While this is an enjoyable read, in that it is mostly a popular history of those correspondents, it has some problems. One problem is that it lacks citations. This means when the author states something you just have to take his word for it, as you can't check his source. History books without citations should never be accepted as 100% truthful, if, in fact, any of them are 100% truthful.
While the author does a decent job covering correspondents from the Federal (Union) side. he doesn't do as well with the correspondents from the Confederate side. This is because---as he states---most of the records of newspapers in the Confederacy were destroyed during the War. As a result, when the author tries to report on the Confederate correspondents, he doesn't have much to relate and often adds filler about the battles covered instead of what the correspondents reported.
Plus, the author reveals he is not very knowledgeable about some basic Civil War history. For example, he repeats an old myth about Gettysburg, that, after that battle, the Union Army of the Potomac just sat back and let the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia retreat without doing anything to stop it. There are at least two excellent books describing the intense efforts of the Union Army chasing the Confederate Army resulting in numerous small battles and skirmishes. Since this book was published in 2000, the author should have known about this.
The author also states Union Army Generals Grant and Sherman decided in 1864 that Sherman would attack Atlanta and then make a "March to the Sea" to Savannah. Not true. Sherman didn't decide on his march through Georgia until after he captured Atlanta. It is well documented that Sherman and Grant exchanged telegrams after the capture of Atlanta until Sherman convinced Grant he could successfully make that march through the South and received Grant's permission to do so. Finally, while the author rightfully describes the Battle of the Crater as a Union fiasco, he places the blame on the wrong general. I've never be able to understand why authors knowledgeable in one area, feel they can make comments in other areas they are not knowledgeable in without taking time to check easily obtainable sources to see if they are right. This makes you wonder how many other mistakes they've made.
So, if you just want to read a popular history of Civil War-era newspapers, editors, and correspondents, this may be the book to read, just don't assume the author knows more than that.
And speaking of how the Civil War correspondents and their reports were similar to today's news channels, here is a great quote from early on in the book.
"They were rowdy and boisterous. They competed hard to be the first with the news, and got it wrong more often than they should have. They were frequently arrogant and pompous. They lied; they cheated; they spied on one another and on the generals they wrote about. They made up battles they had never seen. They speculated in cotton. They drank too much.
"They did a lot of things reporters are still doing today."
And I'll add that the author was a newspaper reporter for more than 40 years, the last 20 with the Wall Street Journal.
While this is an enjoyable read, in that it is mostly a popular history of those correspondents, it has some problems. One problem is that it lacks citations. This means when the author states something you just have to take his word for it, as you can't check his source. History books without citations should never be accepted as 100% truthful, if, in fact, any of them are 100% truthful.
While the author does a decent job covering correspondents from the Federal (Union) side. he doesn't do as well with the correspondents from the Confederate side. This is because---as he states---most of the records of newspapers in the Confederacy were destroyed during the War. As a result, when the author tries to report on the Confederate correspondents, he doesn't have much to relate and often adds filler about the battles covered instead of what the correspondents reported.
Plus, the author reveals he is not very knowledgeable about some basic Civil War history. For example, he repeats an old myth about Gettysburg, that, after that battle, the Union Army of the Potomac just sat back and let the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia retreat without doing anything to stop it. There are at least two excellent books describing the intense efforts of the Union Army chasing the Confederate Army resulting in numerous small battles and skirmishes. Since this book was published in 2000, the author should have known about this.
The author also states Union Army Generals Grant and Sherman decided in 1864 that Sherman would attack Atlanta and then make a "March to the Sea" to Savannah. Not true. Sherman didn't decide on his march through Georgia until after he captured Atlanta. It is well documented that Sherman and Grant exchanged telegrams after the capture of Atlanta until Sherman convinced Grant he could successfully make that march through the South and received Grant's permission to do so. Finally, while the author rightfully describes the Battle of the Crater as a Union fiasco, he places the blame on the wrong general. I've never be able to understand why authors knowledgeable in one area, feel they can make comments in other areas they are not knowledgeable in without taking time to check easily obtainable sources to see if they are right. This makes you wonder how many other mistakes they've made.
So, if you just want to read a popular history of Civil War-era newspapers, editors, and correspondents, this may be the book to read, just don't assume the author knows more than that.
And speaking of how the Civil War correspondents and their reports were similar to today's news channels, here is a great quote from early on in the book.
"They were rowdy and boisterous. They competed hard to be the first with the news, and got it wrong more often than they should have. They were frequently arrogant and pompous. They lied; they cheated; they spied on one another and on the generals they wrote about. They made up battles they had never seen. They speculated in cotton. They drank too much.
"They did a lot of things reporters are still doing today."
And I'll add that the author was a newspaper reporter for more than 40 years, the last 20 with the Wall Street Journal.
