Book Reviews
Book Reviews — April 2019
Originally published April 2019 · pp. 36–43
Civil War News book reviews provide our readers with timely analysis of the latest and most significant Civil War research and scholarship. Contact Stephen Davis, Civil War News Book Review Editor. Email: [email protected].
Blending old and new Civil War scholarship Upon the Fields of Battle: Essays on the Military History of America’s Civil War. Edited by Andrew S. Bledsoe and Andrew F. Lang. Notes, index, 304 pp., 2018. Louisiana State University Press, www.lsupress. org. $48 cloth. Reviewed by Thomas J. Ryan Andrew S. Bledsoe and Andrew F. Lang set as their goal with this collection “to rectify the disparities between military and other histories of the Civil War” in order to bring a balance to the field of traditional or conventional military history and the “new” school of thought that links military history to broader themes in society. As a result, the editors see the essays in this collection as pushing the boundaries of the current state of the field through innovation, and serving as an “antidote” for the type of Civil War scholarship that sows confusion about the Civil War and its consequences.
42nd Annual Ohio Civil War Show Including WWI & II 27th Annual Artillery Show
Military Material From 1775 Through 1945
Saturday May 4th – Sunday May 5th 2019 Sat. 9:00 – 5:00 | Sun. 9:00 – 3:00
Richland County Fairgrounds, Mansfield, Ohio | Location: US-30 and Trimble 800 Tables of Military Items, Books, Prints For Buy, Sell, Trade & Display
SPECIAL FEATURES
Artillery Demonstrations & Cannon Firing Demonstrations Civil War & WWII Encampments • Field Hospital Scenario rd Period Church Service • Camp Chase Fife & Drum & 73 OVI Regimental Band • Gettysburg Address Presented by President Lincoln • Marlboro Volunteers Traveling Museum & Military Vehicles $7 Admission (includes parking) – Under 12 FREE Handicap Facilities, Food and Door Prizes www.ohiocivilwarshow.com | Facebook: Ohio Civil War Show For Information Call: 419-884-2194
In his Introduction, Gary W. Gallagher characterizes these articles as a reflection of the “sea change” that Civil War military history has undergone over the past 20 years, while Earl J. Hess urges practitioners of battle history to widen the field by questioning past research and plotting a new agenda. In this collection there are five articles in “The Contested Battlefield” category. First, Kenneth W. Noe tackles the subject of how the weather contributed to Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan’s misfortune on the Virginia Peninsula in 1862 during a five month-long siege and slog campaign that hampered his strategy and tactics. These weather-induced problems continued after Gen. Robert E. Lee took command of Confederate forces following the wounding of Gen. Joseph Johnston. However, Lee managed to gain a string of victories within a relatively brief period despite the poor weather conditions. Next, Jennifer M. Murray examines Maj. Gen. George G. Meade’s “Golden Opportunity” to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia following the Union victory over Robert E. Lee’s army at Gettysburg in July 1863. Murray defends Meade against “detractors,” and stresses that Meade’s “primary objective was the protection of Washington, D.C.” Yet President Abraham Lincoln desired Meade to follow Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s example of forcing the surrender of the Confederate army at Vicksburg. Though Meade wavered in his resolve to contest Lee once again, Murray concludes that Meade’s failure was “less of a damning testament of his leadership than an observation of a broader reality in military history.” Andrew Bledsoe contributes an article examining “the unpredictable human element” in the art of command. Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg is featured in this discussion, especially with regard to written orders. Bragg’s inability to convey clear and concise directives was exacerbated by his unpopularity with subordinates. As a result, Bragg’s failure to establish an effective command and control system is cited as the reason his forces were unable to gain a victory at McLemore’s Cove in Georgia in September 1863, despite the odds in their favor. “The Looting and Bombardment of Fredericksburg” is John J. Hennessy’s contribution. Was Robert E. Lee’s decision to occupy the town of Fredericksburg the main cause of its eventual destruction in 1862, or were Union forces given a free hand to seek retaliation the primary factor? Hennessy examines this question in the context of a war in transformation, in which the standard rules would not be followed. The final essay in this category addresses the existence of guerrilla warfare on both the battlefront and the home front. Brian D. McKnight states this violence was “a means to an end.” Along the borderlands of Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky, widespread deprivation and fear resulted. Destruction of personal property and disruption of the normal lifestyles of perceived enemies generated retaliation from those with competing loyalties. Another section is devoted to “The Soldiers’ War,” and also contains five articles. Andrew Lang begins with “The Limits of American Exceptionalism,” that evaluates how white Federal soldiers occupying the Confederacy in wartime understood the requirement for military power to preserve their “exceptional nation,” while at the same time they were also concerned about the transformation that would inevitably occur. In particular, black liberation would present imposing challenges to the liberators, former slave owners, and the newly-freed population as well. Kevin M. Levin contributes an analysis of Confederate military executions that reveals surprising statistics about the frequency of this type of punishment. Executing soldiers, primarily for desertion, had a sobering effect on army units that were required to attend these frightening exhibitions. Nonetheless, Confederates on the whole tended to support execution as a deterrent for would-be deserters. In the third piece, Keith Altavilla writes about Democrats in the Union army at the time of the 1864 presidential election. In “McClellan’s Men,” he describes the political atmosphere after almost four years of war during which the Lincoln administration had been unable to crush the rebellion, and the effect that had on the way in which Union soldiers would vote. Despite McClellan’s popularity among the rank and file, Lincoln won their vote by a wide margin. Brian Matthew Jordan focuses on the heavy losses the 107th Ohio Infantry Regiment sustained during the Gettysburg campaign, and its enduring aftereffects. In “The Hour That Lasted Fifty Years,” he recounts how the substantial casualty list led to additional suffering for members of the regiment in later years, particularly as a result of non-responsive governmental policies in caring for the needs of the 107th’s families and survivors. In the final contribution in this segment, Robert L. Glaze examines how the reputation of military leaders who succumbed early in the Civil War evolved based on emotion rather than performance. Albert Sidney Johnston had been the target of criticism for his performance as commander of a military department in the west, and there were calls for his resignation. However, his death on the battlefield led former critics to bemoan his loss as “a potential savior” of the Confederacy. Glaze concludes that “Johnston meant more to the people of the Confederacy in death than he ever did in life.” Bledsoe and Lang set out to present a balance between traditional and more modern approaches to Civil War history and interpretation, and insure that these presentations would be the product of qualified professionals. Judging from the variety of themes the authors chose to address, they achieved the first part of their objective. The qualifications of the contributors are aptly reflected in the clear, concise and well-researched essays in this collection. Thomas J. Ryan is the author of Spies, Scouts, and Secrets in the Gettysburg Campaign: How the Critical Role of Intelligence Impacted the Outcome of Lee’s Invasion of the North, June-July 1863. His latest book, with co-author Richard R. Schaus, titled ‘Lee is Trapped, and Must be Taken’: Eleven Fateful Days after Gettysburg, July 4-14, 1863 is scheduled for publication by Savas Beatie this spring.
African Americans have served in the American military throughout its history with distinction, but not always with equality. Robert Jefferson Jr. has provided readers with insight into eightynine heroic individuals who have been awarded the country’s highest military award, the Medal of Honor. Since creation of the award in 1862, only 3,500 men and women have been recognized for their gallantry above and beyond the call of duty. Students are provided with lessons that everyone can learn from in this book. Each individual recognized was courageous during military clashes of the past. Jefferson makes an important point: how these brave individuals had to deal with segregation and discrimination in their military service, as well as in their daily lives. The author makes an excellent point that U.S. citizens, soldiers and politicians have often questioned the capability and courage of African Americans on the battlefield. Brothers in Valor is split into seven chapters, covering the Civil War, Indian Wars, Spanish American War, World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam as well as heroism in the twenty-first century. Biographies and photographs are provided for the 89 black soldiers, sailors and marines. Two of these recipients were Sgt. William H. Carney and Pvt. Milton Olive III. William H. Carney was born a slave in 1840 but in January of 1863 gained the opportunity to serve in the 54th Massachusetts following the Emancipation Proclamation. During the second battle of Fort Wagner, South Carolina on July 18,1863, despite wounds in his right arm and both legs, Sergeant Carney picked up the fallen regimental flag after the color bearer was hit. He waved the flag for all to see and led the way to the parapet to plant the colors. After Col. Robert Gould Shaw was killed, Carney inspired his fellow soldiers forward. Even after sustaining his severe wounds, Carney proudly declared, “Boys, the old flag never touched the ground!” After this battle, Carney became the first African American to receive the Medal of Honor. Born in Chicago in 1946, Milton Olive III enlisted in the army and was assigned to a company in the famed 503rd Infantry Regiment, one of the most elite airborne units in the military. In the Vietnam War he fought in numerous combat actions in the Phu Cuong jungle against the Vietcong. During a firefight, a grenade was thrown in his comrades’ direction. Without thinking of his own safety, Olive picked up the live grenade and fell on it. He thus died a hero, saving several of his fellow soldiers from death and serious injury. Jefferson reports that President Lyndon Johnson awarded the MOH to this fallen hero on April 21, 1966. The author makes a significant point that this soldier’s record never mentioned his race or racial origin. Eighty-seven other fascinating stories are included in this detailed, richly researched and comprehensive volume. Photographs of many of these brave men appear in a Pantheon of Heroes. I wish Jefferson could have provided more examples of the racial hardships that the recipients endured during their service and in their private lives. Additionally, maps of the many wars and locations of the distinguished actions would have enhanced the narrative. With these eighty-nine portraits, Brothers in Valor provides enthusiasts with a fresh perspective on the accomplishments and bravery of African Americans in the conflicts of the United States. David Marshall has been a high school American history teacher in the Miami-Dade School district for the past thirty-two years. A life-long Civil War enthusiast, David is president of the Miami Civil War Roundtable Book Club. He has given presentations to Civil War round tables on Joshua Chamberlain, Ulysses S. Grant, Abraham Lincoln and the battle of Gettysburg.
Civil War Armies. By Peter S. Carmichael. Illustrations, notes, bibliography, index, 392 pp., 2018. University of North Carolina Press, www.uncpress. org. $34.95 hardcover. Reviewed by Jeffry D. Wert
Billy Yank and Johnny Reb have been the subjects of a shelfful or more of books. From Bell Irvin Wiley’s pathbreaking two volumes (1943, 1952), to more modern studies by such esteemed historians as James McPherson and James I. Robertson, Jr., their lives during the war have undergone detailed examinations and re-examinations. Most, if not nearly all of the books, have focused on the daily lives and experiences of the common soldiery. What they wore, what they ate, the weapons they carried, their beliefs in their respective causes, their performances in combat, and even their sexual activities have garnered study. We know much about them from their own words in letters and diaries. This new work by Dr. Peter S. Carmichael presents a different approach to the subject. He delves into not what the Billy Yank and Johnny Rebs thought, but “how” they thought about the reality of soldiering and the terrible conflict in which they found themselves. Carmichael argues that soldiers on both sides entered into military service within cultural and ideological frameworks. He uses the term sentimentalism to describe these beliefs, asserting that the citizen-soldiers and their Deadline for submissions and advertising is the 20th of each month for the following CWN issue.
soldier with physical and moral discipline formed the foundation of a victorious army. For the men in the ranks, however, the experience of a soldier’s existence in camp, on the march, or in battle made them pragmatists in how they viewed their lives in an army. The author maintains that the majority of Civil War soldiers adhered to cultural sentimentalism throughout the war, but their pragmatism caused conflicts within themselves in how they described the conflict’s reality. This caused the manner in which soldiers crafted letters to family and friends. The author relies upon case studies of individual Union and Confederate soldiers to present his findings. Carmichael has selected men, as he states, of “all backgrounds.” Whether the men chosen by the author reflect the views of a majority of their comrades will likely generate debate among fellow scholars and serious readers of Civil War studies. These case studies are supplemented by the voices of many of their comrades. The author’s research in unpublished material and published works is impressive, if not impeccable. He covers a gamut of topics—comrades,
He addresses even the relics and trophies that veterans either sent home or carried with them after the war and how those items affected the veterans’ connections to their own experiences and to the war itself. Unquestionably, there were differences between the viewpoints and beliefs of Union and Confederate soldiers. The Federals tended to be empathetic to the plight of their foes and could look at defeats, such as the slaughter at Fredericksburg, with a critical detachment. Rebels, however, had nothing good to say about their enemy, and their adherence to the cause and the denial of impending defeat were characteristic of many of them. Each side reflected, in turn, the divergent cultural attributes of their respective societies. The War for the Common Soldier is a serious and important work. Not all readers will agree with some of its arguments or conclusions, but the book merits an audience. It is both a thoughtful and thought-provoking study. Jeffry Wert’s numerous books on the war include General James Longstreet (1993) and Gettysburg: Day Three (2001).
Paul Kahan provides a well-written analysis of Ulysses S. Grant’s presidency and how political, economic and cultural forces unleashed by the Civil War defined many of his presidential decisions. Throughout his presidential tenure, Grant was consumed by Reconstruction. His vision of binding the nation together was always focused on the basis of justice and political equality for all, particularly newly freed slaves and Native Americans. Early twentieth century historians like William Dunning charged Grant with being party to a vindictive Northern attempt to punish the South. Later historians, e.g., Kenneth Stampp and C. Vann Woodward, felt Grant did not do enough to advance black political and economic rights. Thus Grant was blamed by both historical schools for failures that ignored his need to curtail legislative dominance, deal with competing factions in the Republican Party, and manage a severe recession, international crises, westward expansion and a Northern electorate desirous of putting the war to rest. As more of Grant’s presidential papers have become available, the scandals associated with his associates have been placed in a proper perspective with his accomplishments.
These included improving relations with Great Britain, promoting African-American political equality, and setting the United States on the path to becoming a world power. Thoroughly researched, balanced in his assessment of events and objective in his analysis, Kahan would agree with Grant’s own assessment of his presidency that mistakes were made but they were “errors in judgment, not intent.” Furthermore, Grant’s military career became the prism through which he understood the demands of his era. He was concerned that politicians would squander the victories won on the battlefields and that Northern support for sweeping political and economic change was shallow and ephemeral. Within this context, Grant can be seen as a politician-in-training not yet adept at using patronage to achieve legislative victories or besting Democrats who controlled the House of Representatives. Democrats were more concerned with embarrassing Grant by their frequent investigations, ostensibly to ferret out corruption, than cooperating to achieve tangible gains in the legislative arena. Grant’s presidential era bears an eerie resemblance to the political landscape today. With a new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives from the 2018 elections, investigations will surely be used to hobble President Trump’s agenda and the politics of personal destruction will again reign in Washington. Paul Kahan’s book is thus not only an excellent look into how Grant shaped the presidency from a background of no political experience, but how many of his dilemmas are evident in our current political climate. This book is highly recommended for a short but insightful look at Grant’s presidency and should be required reading for presidential historians and Civil War buffs. Wayne L. Wolf is Professor Emeritus at South Suburban College in Illinois and the author of numerous Civil War books and articles, including Heroes and Rogues of the Civil War and Soldiers, Sailors and Scoundrels of the Civil War. He is past president of the Lincoln-Davis Civil War Roundtable
River of Death: The Chickamauga Campaign. Vol. 1: The Fall of Chattanooga. By William Glenn Robertson. Illustrations, maps, notes, bibliography, index, 680 pp., 2018. University of North Carolina Press, www.uncpress.org. $45 cloth. Reviewed by Sam Davis Elliott
Although much ground has been made up in the last twenty years or so, it is fair to say that the Western Theater remains the figurative red-headed stepchild of Civil War scholarship. Only recently have we seen, for example, scholarly treatment of the individual battles of the Atlanta Campaign, or the battle of Knoxville. Timothy Smith has produced a campaign level trilogy of the Federal invasion of Tennessee and northern Mississippi in 1862 to rival Gordon Rhea’s Overland Campaign series, and David Powell’s recent Chickamauga trilogy matches any of the myriad of intense tactical studies of the fighting at Gettysburg. Another deficiency has now been addressed. Until now, one area where Western Theater historiography lagged behind was a view of one of its most significant campaigns from an operational standpoint, similar to Edward Coddington’s classic The Gettysburg Campaign (1968). The U.S. military defines the operational level of war as the “level of war at which campaigns and major operations are planned, conducted, and sustained to achieve strategic objectives within theaters or other operational areas.” In Vol. 1 of River of Death, William Glenn Robertson has skillfully portrayed, from an operational standpoint, the first phase of the 1863 campaign for the possession of Chattanooga. Robertson’s eminent qualifications for this task are clearly reflected in his deep narrative. For years, in connection with his duties at the United States Army Combat Studies Institute in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Robertson led staff rides of mid-level officers (primarily majors) that studied the campaign on the ground, both inside and outside the Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park. Robertson gathered primary source materials continuously during that time, and the book blends the first-person viewpoints of soldiers and civilians in a manner that significantly enriches the text. Introductory chapters cover each army and its commanders to the brigade level as they existed in July 1863, prior to the start of the campaign. Beginning in late August 1863, the Federal Army of the Cumberland, operating on a front of over one hundred airline miles on a diagonal line from East Tennessee through northwest Georgia to northeast Alabama, advanced on Chattanooga. The Confederate Army of Tennessee was eventually maneuvered out of the strategic little town on the Tennessee River, abandoning it to the Federals on September 9, 1863. Robertson’s narrative outlines Federal Maj. Gen. William S. Rosecrans’ efforts at deception, and the thought processes and considerations that finally required Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg to withdraw (he hoped only temporarily) from Chattanooga. The relative strengths and weaknesses of the armies and their commanders, the logistical challenges each faced, the impact of the difficulties the terrain imposed on both armies, and the larger strategic picture are blended into a seamless, indepth treatment of this first phase of the Chickamauga campaign. Those readers with a familiarity of the Chattanooga area will particularly appreciate Robertson’s portrayal of the vast geographical scope of the movements in the approximately two-week period covered by the book, and students of the maneuvers that immediately preceded the battle of Chickamauga will note that the book ends on the cusp of a momentum shift from the Federals to the Confederates, as the large area of Federal operations that aided the capture of Chattanooga began to expose the widely-separated Federal columns to defeat in detail. Even if the study of the Western Theater is not the first love of the reader steeped in Antietam and Gettysburg, Robertson’s first-rate military scholarship is well worth the time it takes to read, if nothing else to lend depth to one’s understanding of the many moving parts of a Civil War army on campaign. For Western Theater enthusiasts, this book is the partial culmination of our long wait to hear from the acknowledged expert on this campaign, leaving us to eagerly anticipate Volume 2, which will cover the remainder of the Chickamauga Campaign presumably through the aftermath of the fighting on September 18-20, 1863. Sam Elliott is a practicing attorney in Chattanooga, Tennessee, a member and former chairman of the Tennessee Historical Commission, and the editor or author of five books on the Civil War, the latest of which, John C. Brown of Tennessee: Rebel, Redeemer and Railroader was the winner of the 2017 Tennessee History Book Award.
Civil War Missouri does not suffer for attention. In recent years, historians have produced a steady flow of books that justly reveal Missouri’s important role in the conflict. Books on slavery, guerrilla warfare, politics, unit histories and war tourism abound. Joseph W. McCoskrie and Brian Warren have added their own entry into this increasingly crowded field with The Civil War Missouri Compendium: Almost Unabridged. The authors aim to provide “a roughly chronological overview of hundreds of the documented engagements that took place within Missouri’s borders.” They then deliver on this promise with an almost daily description of battles and skirmishes that left Missouri with the greatest number of combat actions outside of Tennessee and Virginia. The Civil War Missouri Compendium is thus a valuable, and unique, book that will be of use to the buff and tourist. However, the book will also frustrate its readers with numerous editorial errors, factual misstatements, and uneven research.
The strength of this book is its concept. Day-by-day, the authors reveal the combat actions of the Civil War in Missouri. The listings are encyclopedic in nature as they document places of action, list casualties, and briefly describe the events. Minor skirmishes usually receive a one-sentence description, while larger actions get several paragraphs. Occasionally, the authors go outside of combat to note important political milestones. Such is certainly the case with their entry on John C. Fremont’s proclamation of martial law and emancipation on August 30, 1861. The authors also mark many events, whether small or large, with sections variously titled “Why It Matters,” “Authors’ Assessment,” “Historical Situation,” “What If” or “What’s at Stake.” Although there is no real consistency for which events get these sections, the labeling can be helpful when trying to understand what is truly important in a book-length recitation of ambushes, raids, and skirmishes. There are two other notable features. First, McCoskrie and Warren intersperse brief biographical sketches throughout their text. Here too, however, there is little consistency as to who receives treatment. For example, Joseph Shelby and John Marmaduke are sketched, but Sterling Price is not. In similar fashion, the authors sketch Bloody Bill Anderson, while providing no such information on William C. Quantrill. There are numerous other instances. One final feature of the book, and perhaps its most valuable, is the frequent inclusion of “Tourism Notes” that guide the reader to many obscure battlefield locations and internet sites. Despite its virtues, The Civil War Missouri Compendium is significantly flawed in its research and editing. The authors have written the book for a popular audience. It thus lacks any form of direct attribution in its research. This is understandable, but it can be frustrating when the authors deal with obscure events and only reference the sourcing
CIVIL WAR REENACTMENT at Museum Village
Aug. 31 & Sept. 1, 2019 Looking for Reenactors! Application is available on our website: www.museumvillage.org Call 845-782-8248 for more information. Museum Village 1010 State Route 17M, Monroe NY 10950
of “local historians” or “some historians” in their text. No less frustrating, the authors at times suggest further research in the ubiquitous Official Records without indicating any specific location within the massive 128-part set. Given this approach to attribution, it is not surprising that errors and misstatements permeate the text. The authors frequently misspell or garble important names. The single-shot Sharps rifle becomes a “repeating fire” weapon. John Marmaduke is described as retreating to his “home base in Helena, [AR]” when that city was occupied by Union forces. The Militia Act of July 17, 1862 receives different definitions on different pages. Senator David R. Atchison is described as having a “staunch anti-slavery stance” and being an “abolitionist,” which, of course, would have surprised the slave-holding Atchison. Many problems surface with the entries pertaining to Sterling Price’s Raid of 1864. General Edmund Kirby Smith never ordered, or assigned, Price to “cross the Mississippi River into Illinois” to threaten Union supply lines in Tennessee. Joseph Shelby never joined Price at Fort Davidson following Old Pap’s attack on September 27. The 62nd USCT did not fight at the Battle of Glasgow, and John Marmaduke did not command 1,500 men of the Missouri State Guard at any point in the campaign. These kinds of mistakes were avoidable, but the authors did at least anticipate that their work was not complete. The full title of the book, The Civil War Missouri Compendium: Almost Unabridged, hints at the problem. The authors explain the catchy subtitle as suggesting their intention “to improve the book in later editions.” The number of errors present in this edition suggest that the authors have plenty of work remaining. Kyle S. Sinisi is a professor of history at The Citadel. He is the author of Sacred Debts: State Civil War Claims and American Federalism, 1861–1880 and The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price’s Missouri Expedition of 1864. He is currently at work on a biography of Samuel Curtis.
Colonels from Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia Colonels in Blue–Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia: A Civil War Biographical Dictionary. By Roger D. Hunt. Photos, bibliography, index, 216 pp., 2017. McFarland, wwww.mcfarlandpub.com/. $39.95 paperback. Reviewed by Krista Castillo
In the spring of 1861, secession fever swept across the southern United States, cannibalizing the meager ranks of the regular army. President Abraham Lincoln faced the immense challenge of suppressing a growing rebellion with an estimated 5,000 officers and enlisted men. Although the Mexican War served as a proving ground for a number of future generals, few men of fighting age possessed military experience beyond that provided by loosely organized local militias. In addition to escalating the crisis, the president’s bold call for 75,000 loyal citizens for three months of service on April 15 initiated an enlistment process based on patriotic fervor, unbridled enthusiasm and social popularity, rather than on military experience. To the detriment of early volunteer regiments, state governors tasked with meeting enlistment quotas appointed commanders more gifted in rallying men than in leading troops. Throughout the war, additional calls bolstered the ranks, and eventually able subordinates replaced the officers who failed to gain the necessary experience and leadership skills. By the war’s end, more than 2.6 million men and women had served in the Federal Army. The vast scale of the war and the massive size of the military forces engaged generated mountains of data and documents scattered among various repositories. Over the past few decades, historians and researchers have resurrected buried information offering new perspectives and fresh insights into one of history’s most researched wars. Although Roger D. Hunt’s motivation is unclear, his Colonels in Blue series offers new life to a group of individuals often overshadowed by mythologized battles and leaders. Organized into volumes by region, the series serves as a biographical dictionary of individuals who achieved, but did not advance beyond the rank of colonel in the Federal army. Like the previous books in the series, the fourth volume, featuring colonels from Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia, is meticulously researched and organized. Arranged by state, each section begins with a list of commanders in order by regiment, followed by each man’s biographical data in alphabetical order. Each biographical entry includes a general service record, personal data such as vital statistics, education, occupation, residences, and images when available. Although the title clearly highlights wartime service, Hunt further humanizes and affirms his deep interest in his subjects through the inclusion of postwar data. Shrouding the often messy process of research and data collection, Hunt’s sleek organizational style makes for easy reading. Even the most experienced researcher is sure to find unfamiliar gems hidden among his research and bibliographical notes. This handy reference is worthy of consideration by anyone with an interest in the Civil War-era Federal army. Krista Castillo manages Fort Negley Visitors Center and Park in Nashville, Tennessee and serves as the president of the Nashville Civil War Roundtable. Fort Negley, built during the Federal occupation of Nashville, was the largest inland masonry fortification constructed during the war.
The U.S. Model 1855 rifle musket was so named because it was developed and approved in 1855 when Jefferson Davis was the U.S. Secretary of War. It holds an odd place in the history of American-made military arms. It was created during a transitional period of the mid-19th century, when new technologies and innovations were becoming feasible for military application. At that time the United States was not engaged in any major conflict. While all that was about to change dramatically in a few years, this lull in activity enabled the U.S. Model 1855 to evolve through a number of changes over its four years of production, 1857 to 1861. The most immediately noticeable characteristic of the U.S. Model 1855 small arm is a feature called the Maynard tape primer which resulted in a lock plate with a hinged door, a high hump and an arched hammer to fit around it. Maynard was a former West Point cadet and dentist by trade. In the mid-1840s he came up with the idea of “making primers of fulminating mixture to ignite by percussion…and secondly the mode of moving and measuring out the primers by the movement of the lock.” His notion was based on the premise that the act of priming the cone with a separate percussion cap was a major impediment under combat conditions. The original idea was used in the conversion of big bore flintlock muskets to the new percussion system beginning in the late 1840s. However, the Maynard tape primer was not a feature of the part-interchangeable .69 caliber U.S. Model 1842 smoothbore musket, although there was a prototype with a European-type back lock. It was also not a feature of the U.S. 1841 percussion rifle, which was originally .54 caliber. The odd lock primer design was instead reintroduced for the first generation of .58 caliber rifled arms, the socalled U.S. Model 1855 series of small arms and the subject of this book. The U.S. Model 1855 has a kind of cult following today for several reasons. It looks different and yet because it was the direct predecessor of the U.S. Model 1861, at the same time much of it looks familiar. The barrel bands are held on with band springs, the bright finish on most of the iron parts (except the sight), the swelled ramrod with its tulip-shaped head, the arched hammer and the bolster with a cleanout screw. The U.S. 1855 rifle muskets broadly fall into three (3) basic types. 1.
Lock plate marked Springfield or Harpers Ferry 1857/8, with a walled (long range) ladder rear sight, and a brass nose cap. Lock plate marked Springfield or Harpers Ferry 1858/9, with a solid base rear sight with three sighting leaves marked 1,3, 5 for yardage, and a brass (early/ transitional) or iron nose cap. The same as #2, dated 1860/1 but with an iron nose cap only, and an iron patch box.
However, it is not unusual to encounter specimens that fall outside of these three broad categories or “types.” The author correctly points out that to fully understand these arms it is necessary to know how many were produced, as well as when, where and why they were made. It turns out there were quite a few more than the three broad variations listed above.
The author, John Willyard, has made a careful study of original correspondence (much of it unpublished) which sheds considerable insight into how and why various changes in the design were made. While it is fun to debate the idiosyncrasies found in original firearms, we must be mindful that we are looking back from a modern perspective. The armorers at Springfield and Harpers Ferry were not privy to subcategories and distinctions that we assign to their production now. The author uses the patience of a forensic detective to reconstruct production variations as well as the numbers stored at and shipped from the Springfield and Harpers Ferry Armories at different times. For example, as many have suspected, the quantity of arms traditionally reported as of Harpers Ferry 1861 production is somewhat inaccurate. Additionally, arms considered by collectors today as “transitional models” because of their lock and barrel dates were in fact partially finished production altered later when the supplies of the more current versions became exhausted. For the valuable information contained, the many charts included in the appendices of this book are worth the very reasonable cover price all by themselves. In addition to the more commonly encountered rifle muskets, the author covers the rifles made at Harpers Ferry as well as
Infantry
Cavalry
Artillery
New Exciting Battles Each Day Li sten to Period Speaker s Ta p t o L i v e C i v i l Wa r M u s i c Obser ve Medical Demonstrations Interact in the Living Histor y Village Stroll the Military Camps Vi e w M o r t a r F i r e D e m o n s t r a t i o n s E x p e r i e n c e a C i v i l Wa r We d d i n g Shop in the Sutler Village Take Part in a Period Worship Service Enjoy the Food/Bevera ge Vendors
For Tickets and Event Information Visit…
or Call 1-800-514-3849
(Limited Preferred Seating—Order Tickets Early)
pistols, carbines, bayonets and cadet models. While virtually all of the U.S. Model 1855 series of small arms utilize the Maynard tape primer, the book includes the Springfield Armory Model 1855 rifle carbine, which does not. The 224 pages of text are supplemented with an extraordinary number (580) of high-quality color photos. The book that this most compares to is Claud E. Fuller’s classic, The Rifled Musket (1958). While the author does not state this specifically, I imagine that it was his intent for the book to create something along the lines of The Rifled Musket for the U.S. Model 1855 series of small arms. The author points out his initial area of interest was with the U.S. Model 1861, and when he first encountered the earlier U.S. Model 1855, it piqued his interest and he began a lifetime of research which would culminate with the publication of this book. US Model 1855 Series of Small Arms ends (logically) with the destruction of the Harpers Ferry Armory in 1861, which is right about where The Rifled Musket continues the story. The only criticism to offer here is the decision to use endnotes after the appendices instead of the much-preferred footnotes at the end of each chapter. This was ill-advised. Perhaps this reviewer is in the minority, but I read the footnotes and have often found that they contain important information that support and clarify the point made by the text. The endnotes here are crammed into two pages and treated as an afterthought to what is otherwise an excellent piece of research. Further, the endnotes are printed in such a tiny font as to almost require magnification to read. The publisher did, however, find enough room for three pages of color advertising at the end for their other books and magazines. A former editor of The Watchdog Civil War Quarterly, Craig L. Barry currently writes the column “The Unfinished Fight,” published monthly in Civil War News. He has written four books as well as two volumes of essays on the material culture of the Civil War and two editions of The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy (2006, 2011).
According to Webster’s 7th New Collegiate dictionary, the definition of mercenary is “one who serves merely for pay.” William Marvel presents a detailed case to prove this point. In 236 pages of text, divided into nine chapters, he attempts to drive this point home. Using charts to define the median income of each Northern state, he regales us with the economic motivation for Union soldiers’ enlistment. This is presented in the early chapters. Later chapters cover each year of the war, and the changing economic situation in the nation. The last chapter is a summation. This is a well-written book with an ample amount of documentation to press the premise home. In particular, he presents a plethora of letters sent home by soldiers to augment the point of the book. The result of this research is that financial stability is the sole, if not major reason, for enlistment. There is little mentioned about patriotism, abolition, or Union. I did feel that the presentation is more in tune to academics. This is a fact-based presentation and not in-step with other books by Mr. Marvel, which are told in a story mode. I agree that money is a great motivator, particularly with lower-economic citizens, who made up the vast majority of enlistees. I am not sure I agree with the conclusions reached here, but do believe further study is warranted. This is the first serious attempt to broach this subject that I am aware of. It is little discussed in Civil War literature. This conclusion distresses me. Perhaps I am an old-school romantic but I have always felt that enlistees’ devotion to the Union was the prime motivator. I, as a student, need to delve further into this idea. I believe we need further studies with larger samples of demographic information on motivation. That said, this is an intriguing study, worthy of consideration. My only reservation is the high cost of the book. I fear this will limit the audience and prevent it from getting the attention it deserves. Perhaps there will be an e-book or Kindle edition available. Joseph Truglio, of Manchester, N.J., is president of the Phil Kearny Civil War Round Table.
Want to Advertise in Civil War News?
Email [email protected] Call 800-777-1862 For information & rate sheet: http://www.civilwarnews.com
Prisoner of War Camp Historiography Crossing the Deadlines: Civil War Prisons Reconsidered. Edited by Michael P. Gray. Illustrations, photographs, maps, tables, index, 272 pp., 2018. Kent State University Press, www. kentstateuniversitypress.com, $45 cloth. Reviewed by Joseph A. Derie
Rails on Top Now”; “Black Union Guards and Confederate Prisoners of War”; and “Lost and Found on the Southern Side: The Resurrection of Camp Lawton.” The editor and the authors of all the essays are specialists in their fields, public and private historians and archaeologists. As can be expected, their essays are knowledgeable, scholarly and extremely well researched, if at times a bit dry. One niggling concern is the reference to the Civil War prisoner of war (POW) camps as prisons. A prison is designed to punish a person for a crime, a POW camp is not (although admittedly being incarcerated in a POW camp can feel like one is being punished, as the POW literature from the earliest writings attests.) The editor and authors accept the term Civil
War prison without questioning the appropriateness of its use. Crossing the Deadlines brings new scholarship to a neglected area of the Civil War. Its best part is Part III, “Unearthing Material Culture, Resurrections and Reconciliation.” This volume is not for everyone but will reward those with especial interest in the subject or those who want something different in their Civil War studies. It is recommended with those caveats. Capt. Joe Derie is a longtime Civil War buff with a special interest in Civil War naval history and the Civil War in the West. He is a retired USCG officer and a licensed officer of the Merchant Marine, currently self-employed as a marine surveyor and marine accident investigator in Portland, Or.