Probably a long shot, but do any of you guys have high res scans of the dust jackets for these? I got them all cheap...

how good is that series? is it biased?

I think you're talking about two different things. Plastic covers, to protect the dust jacket and the book.

I'd like scans of the actual dust jackets so I can replace the ones I took off them. Nobody ever mentioned plastic. I'm not sure how this thread turned into a giant shit post fest. If you don't have scans let the thread die

You're going to get a biased answer by asking this.

I've never heard of anyone doing this. I work summers at a middle school, despite what you claim this is not done their either. This is the strangest thing I've ever heard of anyone doing.

Can I please see your bookshelf? Copies of books where you've actually printed out your own dust jackets? It's incredible to me, and probably everyone else.

Also, who told you to do this? When did you start doing it? What makes you think it's normal?

I've never done it before. These dust jackets have such big pieces missing I want to replace them. And in school all the time we put our own dust jackets made out of construction paper or something over the books to protect them per school guidelines.

These books also do not have the titles printed on the spine. So I figured I'd try to ask for scans before I just use something else to mark them

Over the text books I mean

Not op, but, christ, can't you people just post a scan without sperging out?

Can you? I've never scanned a book jacket in my life!

What is even the point of dust jackets? They're ugly, flimsy, akward, and they don't even actually protect the book from dust.

They inside flap tells you what the book is actually about

That used to be the job of the first few pages.

When is used to? I have hardbacks from the 50's and without the dust jacket there is no indication if it's non-fiction or fiction. There's no synopsis First few pages is no real indication of what an entire book is about

Foote is probably the most significant/influential/generally-loved historian of the Civil War. He wrote a very compelling, even beautiful, history and there's little which is technically wrong with his work.

That said, he is by no means the best historian of the Civil War. His books sometimes resemble a Norse epic more than a balanced history, dwelling on great men and military history to the neglect of social/political history. In particular he has been accused of being romantic about the Confederacy (though he is by no means a Lost Causer or a neo-Confederate).

If you're going to read just one history of the Civil War, it should be Jim McPherson's Battlecry of Freedom. But still, speaking as a historian, Foote is a national treasure, and though his books are not the best history of the Civil War, they're certainly some of the best literature (and still perfectly fine history besides).

Well, it is "The Civil War: A Narrative"

how could Veeky Forums thread ever turn into shitpost fest?