Book Reviews

Book Reviews — February 2021

Originally published February 2021 · pp. 40–42

The War For Missouri 1861– 1862. By Joseph W. McCoskrie. Photographs maps, illustrations, appendices, glossaries, index, chapter notes and bibliography. 205 pp. The History Press, www. arcadiapublishing.com,softcover. $21.99 Reviewed by Richard J. Blumberg

Initially considered a Confederate state, Missouri was among the most hotly contested areas of the nation. Several works cover the Civil War’s Western Theater; however, very few cover activities that occurred in Missouri. Joseph McCoskrie remedies this situation with his The War For Missouri 1861–1862. He asserts that the national Confederate leadership government failed to recognize the importance of the geographic, demographic, and economic advantages Missouri provided in waging a military contest. This is ironic since ten bitterly contested battles occurred in Missouri before the First Battle of Manassas on July 21, 1861. This work provides concise and insightful topical discussions arranged as chapters. McCoskrie provides a detailed discussion of each engagement’s significance. He includes suggested reading lists, colorful illustrations, and detailed maps that help the reader understand a particular engagement. This study is an excellent reference tool reminding us that Missouri’s soldiers came in many different forms: state troops, regular soldiers with varying enlistment periods, Home Guards, and guerilla fighters. His work provides scholarly research in a format that is easy to read and understand. McCoskrie does an excellent job describing how Missouri’s geography, demographics, and political situation fit into the beliefs of local citizens. While proving his thesis, he takes the reader on a picture journey of the views shared by various military units, guerrilla fighters, politicians, and ordinary folk . In the end, this somewhat forgotten state saw many battles fought and lives lost; lots of families might say “for what?” McCoskrie is a Virginia Military Institute graduate who served twenty-eight years in the military. He then completed a twenty-five-year career in banking. He has also shaped the leadership of future military leaders serving as an assistant professor of military science in the Illinois State and Missouri Universities’ ROTC programs. Richard Blumberg has reviewed books for Civil War News for over eighteen years, and has also contributed a couple of articles for Civil War News.

The Presidents vs. The Press: The Endless Battles Between the White House and the Media-from the founding Fathers to Fake News. By Harold Holzer. Bibliography, Notes and Index, 576 pp., 2020. Dutton. Penguinrandomhouse. com. Cloth. $30. Reviewed by David Marshall

This new title deals with the relationship between presidents and the press opens with George Washington being concerned that newspapers provided important information to the enemy during the Revolutionary War. Once he became president, he looked for the positives the press can provide the public but was blind to the realities that they are often concerned about selling papers without necessarily always providing honest coverage of his administration. In The Presidents vs. The Press, distinguished Lincoln historian Harold Holzer examines the challenges presidents have had since the birth of our nation in dealing with the press. Covering many presidents and incorporating subjects either ignored or only lightly touched on in other presidential histories, this is a book of unusual scope and complexity. Holzer has divided this study into five parts from the founding fathers’ “Malignant Industry,”, to 19th Century presidents and “A Government of Newspapers,” early 20th presidents’ “From The Bully Pulpit To The Fireside,” the 1960’s-1970’s a “Far Greater Information,”—and finally to Truth Is the Glue” covering the last fifty years. He provides firstrate insight how presidents from George Washington to Donald Trump have been unhappy with press coverage that today has been called fake or false news. Holzer allows readers to discover the actions and reactions from the birth of the nation through the twenty first century chief executives. He provides lively examples and analysis of disagreements and respites by Richard Nixon; mutual distrust by Bill Clinton as well as occasional collaboration by Theodore Roosevelt. He moves on to “sanitized news” and fake news put out Lyndon Johnson and efforts by both press and presidency to dominate the other. In the chapters on George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, Holzer provides a clear understanding that these presidents took offense with their press coverage and at times were outraged and attempted to take measures to silence newspapers and reporters. While Washington remained silent except to his close friends and cabinet members concerning his feelings, it is remarkable that our first president withstood so much criticism from the ‘infamous scribblers’ without responding as have future presidents such as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump. Both Washington and John Adams supported laws that eventually passed and became known as the Alien and Sedition Act under Adams. While Thomas Jefferson had no issues holding journalists answerable for slander and did not necessarily believe everything written in newspapers, more than most presidents he held that the press was free and should not be interfered with by the Federal government. The implication of the new, broader arguments led to long term tension between the press and citizens for fifty years, with Abraham Lincoln regenerating sedition acts during the Civil War. In the nineteenth century, Andrew Jackson successfully used former newspapermen in his administration to distort the lines between his presidency and reporters as did Abraham Lincoln by hiring his secretaries who worked in the press. They both used censorship while fighting against secession. In the early twentieth century, Theodore Roosevelt worked with several progressive muckrakers such as Lincoln Steffens to investigate trusts and became the nation’s first progressive president producing many significant changes including conservation and the establishment of national parks. While Woodrow Wilson surrendered much influence to the press, he also produced the first campaign commercial, demonstrated Lincolnesque qualities by telling witty stories at a 1914 news conference, created messaging through the Federal Committee on Public Information, and curtailed dissent. Presidents who demonstrated an ability to circumnavigate the changing media scenery included Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, and Kennedy. After 1974, the press became skeptical of the U.S. elected chief executives because of Vietnam and Watergate, and tried to keep leaders honest. Ford, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump have all attempted to be transparent with the fourth estate, they often found themselves being questioned concerning their motives, policies, and moral standing. Holzer makes a strong argument that, while critics of Donald Trump complain that he bypasses the press by utilizing twitter, others have optimized media platforms to persuade American audiences. Thomas Jefferson did this by originating official administration newspapers, Abraham Lincoln in writing newspaper articles and forwarding letters to papers. Franklin Roosevelt used the radio for his fireside chats; Ronald Reagan made his weekly radio broadcasts, and Barak Obama utilizing the internet. Throughout this excellent and fast-moving monograph, readers will find that while Trump is preoccupied with the media reporting of his presidency and has a combative relationship with the press, so did a long list of earlier presidents. This study weaves a fascinating story on the decisions made by nineteen American presidents and reveals significant changes in presidential press coverage that affected the success of their time in office. This treatment is groundbreaking, balanced, meticulously researched, very readable, provides thoughtful analysis and explanations and is a real page turner. David Marshall is a high school American history teacher in the Miami-Dade School district for the past thirty-four years. A lifelong Civil War enthusiast, David is president of the Miami Civil War Round Table Book Club. In addition to numerous reviews in Civil War News and other publications, he has given presentations to Civil War Round Tables on Joshua Chamberlain, Ulysses S. Grant, Abraham Lincoln, the Battle of Gettysburg, and the Common Soldier.

Counties.” Governor Morton the Constitution in our current What of the designation of home viewed the southern half of the war on terror, conclusions about grown, white terrorist groups? state as a nest of Copperhead ac- the actions of Civil War-era Once you read this book, you tivity populated by southern sym- Republicans regarding racial re- will be able to visit your high pathizers, Democrats, and secret settlement, white racist terrorism, school history teacher, and intelsocieties. There was serious con- and about the persistent relevance ligently discuss your understandcern that southern Indiana would of the Milligan decision.” In the ing of ex parte Milligan and its secede and join the Confederacy. end, the editors wonder aloud ramifications for today. A total of nine men were seized, about rethinking “the fundamenfive were released or fled, and tal nature of liberal constitution- Salvatore Cilella is the retired the remaining four were tried alism itself.” (p. 21). CEO of the Atlanta History Center. in Indianapolis during October It cannot be overstated, this is Between 2001 and 2006 he served Civil War News book reviews provide our readers with timely 1864, charged with inciting rebel- an essential read. It is well writ- as President and CEO of the Indiana analysis of the latest and most significant Civil War research and lion, conspiracy against the fed- ten, jargon-free, without exces- Historical Society. He is the author eral government, and aiding and sive legalese. It is important to of Upton’s Regulars, A History of scholarship. Contact email: [email protected]. abetting the enemy. In December, our understanding of America’s the 121st New York Volunteers in Milligan and two compatriots long lasting, tragic turmoil be- the Civil War, University of Kansas were convicted by a military tween 1861 and 1865 that bedev- Press, 2009; editor of The Selected of General court and sentenced to hang. ils us yet today. This book raises Correspondence President Andrew Johnson later serious questions that beg for an- Emory Upton, 2017, University of commuted their sentences to life. swers. Once war is declared on Tennessee Press and Till Death Do Ex Parte Milligan remembered it had something to In 1865, Milligan’s lawyers filed terrorism, should captured for- us Part, The Letters of Emory and Reconsidered: Rage and Civil do with Copperheads, Lincoln, a writ of habeas corpus for justi- eign national terrorists be tried Emily Upton, 1868-–870, University Liberties from the Lincoln and perhaps the Constitution. fication of their initial arrest and by civilian or military courts? of Oklahoma Press, 2020. Administration to the War on After all, the title said it was le- further, whether they should have Terror. Edited by Stewart L. galistic and dry. been tried by a military court. Winger and Johnathon W. White. Fear no longer. The editing Their case ended up in the Photos, notes, index, bibliogra- team of Stewart L. Winger and Supreme Court whose 1866 rulDigital Issues of CWN are available by phy, 392 pp., 2020. Lawrence, Jonathon W. White have accom- ing became an important milesubscription alone or with print plus CWN University Press of Kansas. $45. plished the impossible. Through stone in American jurisprudent bright, intelligent and compre- history. Three questions before archives at CivilWarNews.com hensible writing and editing, the court were: “Was a writ of Reviewed by Salvatore Cilella the two have not only explained habeas corpus necessary for Milligan historically but updat- Milligan?” Should he be reed it and made it relevant to cur- leased?,” and most importantrent events. Not every historical ly, “Can military courts operate incident lends itself to that kind when civilian courts and law and of treatment. In addition, the duo order prevail?” The court ruled and their 10 co-essayists explore against the government in the the impact of Milligan on civil majority opinion handed down by rights/liberties then and the pres- Justice David Davis. One of the ent day. Think military tribunals more surprising revelations, parin Guantanamo for the last two ticularly to this reviewer, was that decades. Benjamin Franklin “Beast” Butler Ex Parte Milligan deals with was the lead attorney for the govthe legality of using military ernment. The Supreme Court tribunals involving civilians held that military courts were not during wartime while local civil- legal where the existing civilian ian courts are in operation and law was alive and well and opavailable for the dispensation erating. The court reaffirmed the of justice. Lambdin P. Milligan right of the military to continue (farmer/lawyer), Stephen Horsey military tribunals where civilian (private citizen), William A. authority had completely col100 Significant Civil War Photographs: Charleston C’mon, admit it. You slept Bowles (physician and politi- lapsed or been overthrown. It also in the War features newly restored images of scenes in the famed city, taken 1860–1865. through that history class on cian), and Andrew Humphreys affirmed the right of Congress to CHARLESTON THE WAR The IN cameramen include the better-known, such George N. Barnard George S. Cook, ex parte Milligan, or you took (U.S. Representative) were all legislate where and when 100 military Significant Civil War as Photographs: Charleston in and the War features newlyas well restored images of scenes in the 1860–1865. as famed somecity, taken lesser-known ones: Samuel Cooley, Charles Quinby, the partners Haas & Peale, off that day, more likely, you affirmed anti-war, anti-Lin- courts were appropriate. The cameramen include the better-known, such as George N. Barnard and Osborn & Durbec. George S. Cook, as well as some lesser-known ones: Samuel Cooley, Charles Quinby, the partners Haas & Text Peale, by Osborn & Durbec.Davis and Jack Melton Stephen were there that day, your teacher coln, Copperheads entrenched In this well-researched, accompanies eacheach featured featuredphotograph, photograph, Text by Stephen Davis and Jack Melton accompanies describing the pictured and the history describing the pictured scenes and the history surroundingscenes them. The selected glossed over the narrative, and in southern Indiana. At the time, well-documented, and well-writimages depict a variety of settings: that portion ofThe Charleston known as The surrounding them. selected images depict a the “Burnt District” variety (the areaof of settings: the city destroyed by the Great Fire that portion of Charleston moved on to the next battle. You counties below Indianapolis were ten treatise, twelve authorsBattery, inof December 1861), the Charleston Arsenal, many churches allow (the known as Theand the Battery, the “Burntthat District” to call theirs “the Holy City.” Special sections of this book are area of the city destroyed by the Great Fire of barely noticed it and if you were decidedly pro-Confederate, and cluding the two editors Charlestonians meticdevoted to the huge Blakely guns imported from England by the Confederates December 1861), the Charleston Arsenal, and and close-ups of Barnard’s views. the many churches that allow Charlestonians to lucky or half awake, you vaguely indeed were called “Butternut ulously lay out their arguments The history of Civil War Charleston to The Charleston Harborof this call goes theirsback “the HolyDefense City.” of Special sections (1890) by John Johnson, Confederate major of engineers, and to Reminiscences of book are devoted to the huge Blakely guns Sumter and Moultrie in 1860-’61 (1876) by Capt. Abner Doubleday, Federal for the reexamination and Forts releimported from England by the Confederates second-in-command. Since then Charlestonians have contributed to the history and close-ups Barnard’s views.III. The historical of their city, notably Robert N. Rosen andof Richard W. Hatcher vance of Milligan to today’stextwar surrounding 100 Significant Photographs draws on these and other works. A unique feature is its reliance upon the writings of actual participants, such as Augustine and Emma Edwards Holmes (1838–1910). on terror. The book is laid out inT. Smythe (1842–1914) The history of Civil War goes back to As a contribution to this literature, 100 Significant CivilCharleston War The Defense of for Charleston Harbor (1890) by John Photographs: Charleston in the War offers rewards all readers, four sections: The Meaning of Johnson, Confederate major of engineers, and to from the casual novice to the serious student. Reminiscences of Forts Sumter and Moultrie in Martial Law; The Copperheads 1860-’61 (1876) by Capt. Abner Doubleday, Federal second-in-command. Since then of the Middle West; The Milligan Charlestonians have contributed to the history of their city, notably Robert N. Rosen and Decision; and The Precedential Richard W. Hatcher III. The historical text surrounding 100 Significant Photographs draws on these and other works. A unique feature is its Power of Milligan. When a “civreliance upon the writings of actual participants, such as Augustine T. Smythe (1842–1914) and il war” book signals relevance, it Emma Edwards Holmes (1838–1910). As a contribution to this literature, 100 behooves all of us to sit up and

Into Tennessee & Failure: John Bell Hood. By Stephen Davis. Maps, bibliography, footnotes, index, 358 pp., 2020. Mercer University Press, www. mupress.org. $35.00, hardcover. Reviewed by Gould Hagler

Mitch: So you hate baseball? Bonnie: No, I like baseball. I just never understood how you guys can spend so much time discussing it. I have been to games, but I don’t memorize……who played third base for Pittsburgh in 1960. – Mitch and Ed (simultaneously): Don Hoak

Grant’s Victory: How Ulysses S. Grant Won the Civil War, by Bruce L. Brager. Gilford, Conn.: Stackpole Books, 2020. 166 pp. $27.95. Reviewed by John D. Fowler

Books praising General Ulysses S. Grant have developed into quite a cottage industry over the past forty years. In fact, it is nearly impossible to peruse a Civil

Inside Baseball

Many people who read Civil War News are like the characters played by Billy Chrystal and Bruno Kirby in City Slickers, while in the broader world most people resemble the character played by Helen Slater. Into Tennessee & Failure: John Bell Hood is written for the Eds and Mitches of the Civil War world. In the second volume of his fine study of General Hood, Steve Davis continues to delve into history and historiography in a way that will grab and hold the attention of readers who (if I may continue the metaphor) already know who played third for the Pirates in 1960. These readers want to learn more about Hoak’s batting average and other stats; about controversies involving him and other players; about questionable plays and disputed calls; about a manager’s decision to put him back into the lineup after an injury; and, of course, they want to know how sportswriters judged the third baseman and his team through his career. Davis’s two volumes are not a biography. They are rather a detailed analysis of Hood’s performance as a commander while he led a corps in the Army of Tennessee and then after he superseded Joseph Johnston as army commander. The work is also an exhaustive bibliographic essay. Volume 1, over 500 pages in length, covers the story up to the fall of Atlanta. The present volume, somewhat shorter, begins as Hood retreats south, then marches his army into Tennessee and disaster, before concluding with Hood’s and the Confederacy’s fall. The appraisal of Hood’s generalship and the historiographic survey in this volume are skillfully woven into a narrative of the army’s movements from September 1864 to war’s end, a narrative that would be comprehensible to Mitch and Ed but which would challenge Bonnie. Davis offers the reader thorough and insightful discussions of the various controversies that are well-known to students of the Civil War, such as the Spring Hill affair, Hood’s decisions at Franklin and Nashville, and the general’s wartime and post-war disputes with other Confederate leaders. These discussions always entail reviews of the primary sources and decades of secondary literature. His contemporaries had a great deal to say about John Bell Hood. So have many historians in the 20th and 21st centuries. Numerous writers have assessed

War book selection without finding a number of works outlining Grant’s expertise and excellence. Most of these put forth similar claims, but author and ghost writer Bruce L. Brager veers off this path a bit to offer a more nuanced and realistic portrayal of the general. Brager writes better than most authors and far better than most academics. While the work is entitled Grant’s Victory: How Ulysses S. Grant Won the Civil War, in reality, the book is less a volume on Grant and more a study of the Civil War’s Eastern Theater, primarily from the Union perspective. The bulk of the book (seven of eleven chapters) covers the Union’s many defeats in the East and injects merely a bit of Grant’s commentary. Only with Grant’s 1864 arrival in the Eastern Theater does the book actually begin to focus on the title subject. In the four remaining chapters, Brager chronicles the general’s struggle to defeat Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia and thus destroy the

Confederacy’s only successful commander and army. In the end, Brager concludes that Grant was, indeed, the right general to put an end to the Civil War. It is hard to argue with Brager’s assessment. Grant did defeat Lee and end the war. While the basic premise is true, it does not present an adequate and comprehensive view of the situation. The 1864 Army of the Potomac should have beaten the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee’s army was half the size of the Union force and woefully undersupplied. The fact that Lee kept Grant at bay for more than a year is a testimony to his skill as a general, not Grant’s. Moreover, the book’s dustcover states that “two of the greatest themes of the Civil War are how Lincoln found his war-winning general in Ulysses S. Grant and how Grant finally defeated Robert E. Lee.” The author argues that while Union generals in the Eastern Theater had faced defeat after defeat, “In the West, Grant had been refining his art of war at places like Fort Donelson, Shiloh,

Hood over the years, and a list of just the works cited fills 22 pages. Davis reviews their work and sometimes assesses the assessors. The book’s concluding chapter provides a concise recap of Hood’s entire military career. The volume is enhanced by five excellent maps by Hal Jespersen. Davis gives credit where credit is due and is candid about Hood’s shortcomings and failures. He points to the young general’s ambitious nature and his back-channel “angling” for promotion. He calls attention to Hood’s carelessness about logistics and other duties of an army commander. Also troubling are his disingenuous reports covering up the scope of the defeat his army suffered in Tennessee and the army’s wretched condition after the retreat. Worse perhaps was his tendency to blame other officers and even his ill-shod, ill-clothed, ill-fed, outnumbered, and outgunned men. After Gettysburg, Lee said “It’s all my fault;” Hood could never say that. Gould Hagler is a retired lobbyist living in Dunwoody, Ga. He is a past president of the Atlanta Civil War Round Table and the author of Georgia’s Confederate Monuments: In Honor of a Fallen Nation, published by Mercer University Press in 2014. Hagler speaks frequently on this topic and others related to different aspects of the Civil War and has been a regular contributor to CWN since 2016. He can be reached at [email protected].

Vicksburg, and Chattanooga.” Yet, we never see this development of Grant in the West, and there is no analysis or explanation of his many failures in the West. The author should have examined Grant in the context of his rout at Belmont, his surprises due to overconfidence at Fort Donelson and Shiloh, his many failed attempts at Vicksburg, and his accidental victory at Chattanooga that owed more to the Army of the Cumberland’s men’s valor than anything planned or executed by the general. The Grant we see emerging late in Brager’s story in Virginia is a formidable commander, and yet, is it not just his willingness to take casualties in a war of attrition that eventually wears down the Confederates? Here, Brager unapologetically departs from many academic historians to argue that the answer to that question is “yes.” That is exactly how Grant won the war. This honesty is refreshing considering that over the past decades a forest of trees has been turned into paper with the purpose of recording how brilliant Grant’s generalship was when in reality it was based on the simplest of facts…he had more men and equipment. This is a popular history written for a general audience of Civil War buffs. The footnotes are thin as is the norm with books of this type, although the bibliography is larger than those generally found in popular press works. I wish I could say that the volume offers nothing new to the scholarly community. However, given that military aspects of the war are being neglected in the training of new professors, this volume could be useful to a wide audience. In sum, while it is another in a long line of hagiographical tributes to Grant, it is written better than most, and its conclusions are sounder than most. John D. Fowler, Ph.D, holds the B.J. and Dicksie Bandy Chair of American History at Dalton State College. He is co-editor, with David B. Parker, of Breaking the Heartland: The Civil War in Georgia (2011).