During the Civil War; private printers in both the North and South produced a vast array of envelopes featuring iconography designed to promote each side's war effort. Many of these "covers" featured depictions of soldiers; prominent political leaders; Union or Confederate flags; Miss Liberty; Martha Washington; or even runaway slaves -- at least fifteen thousand pro-Union and two hundred fifty pro-Confederate designs appeared between 1861 and 1865. In Patriotic Envelopes of the Civil War; the first book-length analysis of these covers; Steven R. Boyd explores their imagery to understand what motivated soldiers and civilians to support a war far more protracted and destructive than anyone anticipated in 1861. Northern envelopes; Boyd shows; typically document the centrality of the preservation of the Union as the key issue that; if unsuccessful; would lead to the destruction of United States; its Constitution; and its way of life. Confederate covers; by contrast; usually illustrate a competing vision of an independent republic free of the "tyranny" of the United States. Each side's flags and presidents symbolize these two rival viewpoints. Images of presidents Davis and Lincoln; often portrayed as contestants in a boxing match; personalized the contest and served to rally citizens to the cause of southern independence or national preservation. In the course of depicting the events of the period; printers also revealed the impact of the war on females and African Americans. Some envelopes; for example; featured women on the home front engaging in a variety of patriotic tasks that would have been almost unthinkable before the war. African Americans; on the other hand; became far more visible in American popular culture; especially in the North; where Union printers showed them pursuing their own liberation from southern slavery. With more than 180 full-color illustrations; Patriotic Envelopes of the Civil War is a nuanced and fascinating examination of Civil War iconography that moves a previously overlooked source from the periphery of scholarly awareness into the ongoing analysis of America's greatest tragedy.
#2761815 in Books Louisiana State University Press 2004-01-13Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.08 x .60 x 6.34l; .86 #File Name: 0807129712274 pages
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Easy to ReadBy Bryan DietzlerExcellent book! A must read for anyone interested in the Civil War. Very interesting and easy to read.2 of 6 people found the following review helpful. What a disappointing load of vitriolic venomBy Parker RenellaThe meaness of this author was too much for me. I did not even finish the book.I bought this book thinking the title signaled a key action identified in this book between the blue and gray that changed the war; only to find out Mr. Krick means the volley that wounded Jackson. Not what I thought. I had never heard of this author before; and I can see why. He is not a qualified historian. A true historian learns to evaluate all sides of the subject; not make a list of defamation of a figure. This collection of cheap shot essays would never stand muster in an academic environment.Krick is abundantly speculative in this set of short essays; picking what sources he likes and discarding; often discrediting others; as if he is a was there and saw everything. His purpose really seems to be Jackson worship and Longstreet defamation. The first essay on the wounding of Jackson Krick wrongly concludes that this sole event lost the war for the Confederacy. No disrespect to good old Stonewall; but the South lost the war for many reasons. If Stonewall lived to the end; they still would have lost.Jackson did well at Chancellorsville; but Longstreet was Lee's best man and corps commander. Let's face it Longstreet won more battles for Lee and the only big battle in the west. Krick totally left that out. Lee always stayed with Longstreet; not Jackson.The third essay is truly a piece of disgustingly unnecessary garbage. As a reader I wonder what would possess someone to write an essay that is a list of unkind comments. Might the author have a mental disorder?Krick closes #3 with a complete lie that Longstreet assailed the characters of Lee and Jackson; but does not provide the proof. Longstreet never assailed the characters of Lee and Jackson. This is probably the single most proof in this trash that Krick is a phony historian. He makes a claim and has no research of fact to back it up.I am no expert on General Longstreet; but I have read enough about the general from competent writers who have done objective writing to know many people said Longstreet was a good man; and nothing of the sort Krick wants to make him out to be. I have seen several letters written by Robert E. Lee heaping praise on Longstreet that I have not seen him do so glowingly to others. It is true that Longstreet had disagreements with other generals; but so did every other general in the Civil War with their colleagues. I only read essays 1-3; I'm skipping the rest of this garbage.6 of 25 people found the following review helpful. WELL -RESEARCHED;NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!By pantherThis book is hardly well researched and anyone with any common sense should be able to tell .For he uses the well used ploy of ignoring what doesn't fit his rather (warped point of view) but using what dose. (Pure propaganda; in this case of the lost cause and to use one of the scribblers own words APPOLOGIST). Just one example is on page 76/77 where he wrights; Longstreet's Demeanor on July 3 affecting the major assault on that day is another subject and BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS ESSAY!!; Why could that be because you would be forced to write something positive about longstreet because he was clearly correct about That stupid assault on July 3. But I find it amusing that many things that happened well before and after dose have somehow have scope; an example of one is Longstreet in the wilderness in 1864 (page 80/81). Quite simply this is just a verbal assault.A second point is that whenever he includes a positive statement made by a person that was there he is instantly a Longstreet apologist. But he willing uses many GEN McLaws statements as gospel to back up his theory without any scrutiny at all; When McLaws clearly had an agenda in anything he said about longstreet.This man is no historian and you should not waste your money on it.
