Tried by War

The NY Times book review for Tried by War is kind of like the book itself - repetitive and not as insightful as it could be. James M. McPherson spends page after page of cavalry movement/Army realignment; as if I was reading along with a fucking map. I didn't take the book to be about the movement of Union armies as much as why Lincoln MOVED those armies; but McPherson spent WAY too many pages going over X went here and Y went there...etc etc etc.

Ironically, the NY Times review stays true to this meme...I read it and what did I find...a lesson on the US Civil War! From the second I read "perfect primer" I knew I was in for a formulaic "I read the bookflaps" nonsense, and I was right. Gee, Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox? WOW!! I had no idea!!!

AWFUL review in this case.

McPherson at his best took the time to explain the POLITICAL reasons for a lot of Lincoln's language throughout the war; also, someone has to get Gene Wilder and Mel Brooks together to make a movie about Lincoln's blinding crush on McClellan. The comedy writes itself.

Also good for McPherson - makes it clear re: when the war turned from "saving the union" to "saving the union and ending slavery." Outlines Lincoln's thinking here. But of course this gets buried in the endless machinations of the movement of troops we're supposed to keep track of, and, of course, isn't mentioned in the book review. Fucking a. Anyway - thanks Op! :)