Battle of Stones River:
The Forgotten Conflict between the
Confederate Army of Tennessee
and the Union Army of the Cumberland

Larry J. Daniel
LSU Press, 2012, 344 pp., $38.50

Review by Gordon Berg

Three book-length studies of the battle have been written since 1980.  Nevertheless, Larry Daniel contends “that the mention of Stones River frequently brings puzzled expressions to those beyond the region” and that a new analysis of the battle is needed. Indeed, a comparison of the various bibliographies indicates that he made extensive use of letters, diaries, and manuscripts not previously examined.  Using his considerable experience with Western campaigns, Daniel meticulously documents what was the war's bloodiest battle in relation to the number of combatants involved.

A good battle narrative is difficult to write.  It weaves precise information about individual actions, unit movements, and anecdotal accounts into an evocative story that provides both expert and generalist with a clear understanding of the battle's pivotal events. Daniel meets all these criteria.  Sometimes, however, he lets his enthusiasm for the trees obscure the forest. Daniel's specificity regarding the location of the battle's many units, the precise distance between so many places, and the exact time events occurred, can overwhelm the non-expert. This is especially true when he narrates the actual fighting.  The book's thirteen maps help, but not enough.

            The plans of each commander were mirror images of the other's.  Union Major General William S. Rosecrans and Confederate General Braxton Bragg each planned to attack the right wing of the other while holding firm on the left.  Bragg struck first at dawn on Dec. 31, 1862.  The Union lines broke and swung back like a gate on a rusty hinge.  But the hinge was held by the brigade of Colonel William Babcock Hazen and it held the end of the Union line at a place that came to be known as “Hell's Half Acre” with uncommon valor.  Hazen's heroic stand in the face of repeated Confederate attacks allowed broken units to reform and probably saved the Army of the Cumberland from an ignoble rout.  A perfunctory Confederate attack on Jan. 2, 1863 across Stones River against the Federal left was broken up by massed artillery superbly directed by Captain John Mendenhall.

The fight was a tactical draw but Rosecrans held the battlefield and Bragg retreated.  The Emancipation Proclamation thus went into effect with news of a Union “victory” rather than under the cloud of the decisive Union defeat at Fredericksburg earlier in the month..  Daniel concludes that “the battle proved to be the first step in a drive that would lead the Federal Army toward Tullahoma, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, and ultimately Atlanta.”  The carnage at Stones River, like that at Shiloh, convinced New Yorker George Templeton Strong that the North was willing to engage in a prolonged war of attrition to preserve the Union.  He concluded that “The South could not win such a war.”

______________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.
The Best Station of Them All:
The Savannah Squadron 1861-1865

By Maurice Melton
University of Alabama Press, 2012, 632 pp., $69.95


Review By Gordon Berg

The conventional wisdom among most historians is that the Confederacy didn't have much of a navy.  So most of them, William N. Still excepted, haven't written much about it.  But Maurice Melton has looked harder and, where others found mostly dross, he found "the best station of them all."  Many years in the making, this meticulously researched and stoutly written account details, for the first time, the rise and fall of the South's first brown water fleet.

Melton's story takes place along the Atlantic Coast between Cape Fear, NC and Savannah GA.  It was a defender's nightmare; a porous maze of barrier islands, marshes, rivers, and creeks.  He describes the region's unique topography like an expert pilot reading a nautical chart.

When Georgia seceded, Savannah native and aged naval hero Josiah Tattnall had the task of trying to defend this area with a ramshackle flotilla of a few coastal steamers and tugs that became known as "The Mosquito Fleet" because of the swarms of pesky insects that bedeviled the ships' crews.  In the war's first months, Melton maintains, Tattnall's coastal guardians "plied the river from the city docks to Tybee and Cockspur Islands and occasionally ran to Port Royal and Charleston." They rarely saw an enemy vessel.

This changed dramatically when Tattnall's band of makeshift mariners encountered the largest armada ever assembled by the United States off Port Royal Sound in November 1861.  Melton describes the Union's first naval victory by carefully balancing the tactical strategies of the combatants with compelling anecdotes about some of the conflict's lesser known personalities.  The result clearly illustrates why combined army/navy operations for both sides proved difficult at best, disastrous at worst, throughout the war. Nevertheless, all the barrier islands between Port Royal and Savannah were soon under Union control.

Major General Robert E. Lee arrived in Georgia for his first field assignment on the day Port Royal fell. He quickly ascertained that "there were not enough men and guns to defend all the South Atlantic coast."  His recommendation, according to Melton, "was to abandon most of the coast, leave the barrier islands and the smaller port cities to the enemy, and concentrate forces to save Charleston and Savannah." Lee left for Virginia in March 1862 but the Yankees were on the coast to stay.

Melton also describes the symbiotic and often contentious relationship between naval affairs and blockade running and the critical role played by African American pilots, both slave and free, in guiding ships over sandbars and along swampy river banks.  He has mined the voluminous records of the Savannah River Squadron along with personal letters, diaries, and newspaper accounts to chart the history of the unit and its relationship to the people of wartime Savannah.

After General William T. Sherman captured their home port and Wilmington, the Confederacy's last operating seaport, fell to a Union land/sea operation in January 1865, the sailors of the Savannah River Squadron became soldiers.  They joined the Army of Northern Virginia and fought as infantry until they were captured at Sailor's Creek on April 6, 1865, an ironical end for a hardy band of mariners.

______________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.
This Wicked Rebellion:
Wisconsin Civil War Soldiers Write Home

Edited by John Zimm
Wisconsin Historical Society Press, 2012, 226 pp., $22.95

Reviewed by Gordon Berg

     There are more than 11,000 of them. Carefully organized and pasted into large folio scrapbooks, they are copies of letters written by Wisconsin soldiers and published in newspapers throughout the state. Edwin B.Quiner collected them for use as reference materials for his magisterial military history of the state's role in the Civil War. Then, in 1867, he donated them to the Wisconsin Historical Society and, over the years, they have been quoted in scores of books and articles.

     They presented John Zimm with the daunting task of making "selections I thought would give the clearest snapshot of the part played by Wisconsin's men and women in the variety of situations and challenges they faced." The letters reproduced in This Wicked Rebellion: Wisconsin Civil War Soldiers Write Home show that Zimm has succeeded admirably. The letters are eloquently written and contain a treasure trove of information.

    The letters are organized categorically rather than chronologically, thus enabling the reader to become immersed in the experiences of the soldiers in various situations. For instance, a soldier camped along the upper Potomac River declares "This is a great country to stay in." He recounts days spent berry picking, foraging, playing poker, and "calling on the country belles..." But a member of the 8th Wisconsin stationed in northern Mississippi complains "of lizards, snakes, and varmints by the million..."

     A member of the 8th Wisconsin at Hamburg TN in April 1862 gives a graphic description of his camp after the Battle of Shiloh. "All I can say is the ground we cover extends 13 miles in length," he wrote, "and three miles in width, all one entire camp, and the river is lined with transports, for miles each way, loaded with troops." As a veteran, he knowingly reports that "Men get lost in the camps, and it is almost impossible to find the way back, if one goes far from home."

     The routine of camp life is relieved by picket duty. A soldier identified only as "Stew" writes from Camp Griffin, VA in the dramatic style to, perhaps, impress the paper's editor. Beyond the picket reserve, he writes, is "the dark woods. I know every every track here; many a long hour have I spent on those bleak hills. Many a time have I traced those winding paths in storm and darkness."

     Wisconsin soldiers served in all theaters of the war. The letters Zimm has selected describing their experiences on the battlefield are searing in their intensity and heartbreaking in their candor. Writing a week after Shiloh, Sgt. Calvin Morely of the 18th Wisconsin recalls "In a field fronting the peach orchard...a variety of bullets might have been gathered...as they were lying about on the ground like fruit from a heavily leaden tree after a storm."

     A letter from Arthur MacArthur, father of General Douglas MacArthur, written after the capture of Missionary Ridge, emphasizes the glorious feeling of battle that most soldiers had lost by 1864. "I immediately took the colors and carried them the balance of the way," he wrote to his own father, "and had the honor of planting the colors of the old 24th Wis., on the top of Mission Ridge, immediately in front of Bragg's old headquarters." With an ego he clearly passed on to his son, MacArthur boasted that he "showed the old flag to Gen. Sheridan immediately upon his arrival upon the top of the ridge."

     Some of the most telling letters Zimm selects reveal the feelings of Wisconsin soldiers when they encounter African Americans and confront the realities of slavery and emancipation. After seeing the "peculiar institution" for himself, a letter writer from Leavenworth, KS in early 1862 admits that "never yet have I found one contented, and never yet seen one that was loyal to his master; and the stories of their careless happiness are forgeries, I firmly believe." A soldier camped near Lake Providence in Louisiana opined that arming former slaves is "a great thing, and will be a great lever in helping to crush this rebellion." But S.R. Knowles, writing from a hospital ward in Newport News, VA spoke for many in 1862 when he declared "I have not seen a soldier, officer or private, but despises them and wishes them off the continent."

      After walking across the Prairie Grove battlefield, Sidney H. Nichols expressed the sentiments of many when he asked "When will peace, a peace satisfactory to us, overshadow our country..." Taken together, these letters paint an intimate picture of the 80,000 men from Wisconsin who went to war and of the 11,000 who never returned home. They speak eloquently to us of a time when uncommon valor became a common virtue.
 
______________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.
When General Grant Expelled the Jews

By Jonathan D. Sarna
Shocken, 2012, 201 pp., $24.95

Reviewed by Gordon Berg

The general never mentioned the order in his Personal Memoirs. His wife, however, was not so reticent. She called it "obnoxious" and in her memoirs declared that "he had no right to make an order against any special sect."

The order was General Order 11, issued by Major General Ulysses S. Grant on Dec. 17, 1862. The "special sect" referred to by his wife, Julia Dent Grant, was the Jews living within the military department commanded by her husband. In what has been described as the most anti-Semitic government document ever issued in America, the Union's most successful field commander and future president of the United States declared that all Jews "are hereby expelled from the department within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order." The order also explained the reasoning behind Grant's edict. "The Jews, as a class," the order read, were "violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department."

Although the order was ordered quickly and quietly rescinded by President Lincoln and directly affected only a small number of Jews in Kentucky and Tennessee, its brief and tumultuous life energized the Jewish community throughout the North and came back to haunt Grant during his run for the presidency in 1868. The story is told with scholarly analysis and in a clear, concise narrative style by Jonathan D. Sarna, a professor at Brandies University and chief historian of the National Museum of American Jewish History.

Sarna recounts the first life of the order in a concise 50 pages. His retelling of Paducah, KY merchant Cesar Kaskel's odyssey to Washington, DC to inform President Lincoln of the injustice being done to a group of loyal citizens judiciously balances a few facts and a bounty of apocrypha that surrounds this impromptu White House call. What's known for sure is that Lincoln quickly ordered Henry Halleck, general-in-chief of the armies, to countermand the order. Choosing his words carefully, Halleck ordered that "if such an order has been issued, it will be immediately revoked." On Jan.6, 1863, just a few days after the Emancipation Proclamation took effect, Grant revoked his ill conceived directive.

But why did Grant issue it in the first place? Unless he was a religious and cultural bigot, which he wasn't, there must have been forces beyond his control that pushed him into action. While it's hard to discern what goes on in a person's mind, Sarna investigates several possible motives, including the involvement of Grant's father, Jesse, in a speculative and possibly illegal scheme to trade in valuable contraband cotton. Grant's relationship with his father was always complicated and the fact that his father's partners were Jewish probably exacerbated the general's frustration.

But it was what the order implied rather than what it did that really caused alarm throughout the Jewish community. "Fault for many of the other evils inevitably associated with war --" Sarna explains, "smuggling, speculating, price gouging, swindling, and producing 'shoddy merchandise for the military – was similarly laid upon the doorstep of 'the Jews.'" Singling out Jews "as a class" rekindled memories of centuries of persecution and Jewish organizations throughout the North were galvanized into action as never before.

The story now shifts to 1868 when Grant became the Republican nominee for president. As an overwhelmingly favorite to win, his opponents looked for anything that could damage him. General Order 11 was resurrected and again became a hot button issue. Grant weathered this storm, too. In fact, Sarna asserts, that "Having apologized for his anti-Jewish order in 1868, he became highly sensitive, even hypersensitive, to Jewish concerns." Sarna points out that Grant "appointed more Jews to public office than any of his predecessors. He sought to bring Jews (as well as Blacks) into the mainstream of American political life. He acted to promote human rights for Jews around the world."

For a man who did so much to atone for one hasty, ill conceived, order issued under the stress of significant military and administrative responsibilities, it is probably best that he never knew that the tomb in which he and his wife rest, on Riverside Drive in New York City, was modeled after the mausoleum of the Roman emperor Hadrian, the same emperor who brutally put down the Jewish revolt against Rome and killed Jews by the thousands. Even great men can do little to escape the ironies of history.

______________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.
George Henry Thomas: As True As Steel

By Brian Steel Wills
University Press of Kansas, 2012, 585 pp., $39.95

Reviewed by Gordon Berg

Historian Bruce Catton believed George Henry Thomas was "certainly one of the four or five best soldiers on either side in the whole war." Reading Brian Steel Wills' definitive biography of the blue Virginian makes it clear why Thomas is now ranked among the pantheon of Civil War generals.

Known as "The Rock of Chickamauga" to history and "Old Pap" to his men, Wills vividly documents the personal complexities of the man that contributed to his capabilities as a soldier. Thomas left no personal papers but Wills has diligently mined previously untapped bibliographic source material to present a nuanced, evenhanded evaluation of the soldier William T. Sherman called "true as steel."

Born into a slave-holding family in Southampton County, VA, Thomas witnessed Nat Turner's great servile uprising of 1831 as a teenager and fled with his family through fields and marsh to reach the safety of the county seat. "The event," Wills maintains, "surely presented him with a starkly drawn firsthand picture of the volatility and dangers inherent in a system of forced labor."

Thomas graduate West Point in 1840 and embarked on a military career that would last the rest of his life. He fought the Seminoles in Florida, Mexicans along the Rio Grande, and Kiowas and Comanches in Texas. He also found time to court and marry Frances Lucretia Kellogg of Troy, NY and return to West Point as an instructor.

When Virginia joined the Confederacy, many wondered what Thomas would do. For him, there was never any question. His loyalty to the uniform he wore and dedication to the nation it represented was strong, steady, and unwavering, much like the man himself. His decision cost him dearly; his sisters never spoke to him again.

Thomas' success on the battlefield is unrivaled. He gained the Union's first significant victory at Mill Springs, KY, reminded his commander that "this army doesn't retreat" at Stones River, stood steadfast on Snodgrass Hill and saved the Army of the Cumberland from destruction at Chickamauga, vowed to hold Chattanooga "'til we starve," proudly watched his men storm Missionary Ridge, and achieved the closest thing to a battle of annihilation by destroying the Army of Tennessee at Nashville.

Thomas was not given to making speeches, but when he bid farewell to his beloved army, his praise was heartfelt and eloquent. "We have not only broken down one of the most formidable rebellions that ever threatened the existence of any country," he said, "but the discipline of the Army of the Cumberland alone has civilized two hundred thousand valuable patriots and citizens."

Wills poignantly recounts Thomas' unsettled postwar years. He refused to play the political games practiced in the peacetime army nor would he become a self-promoter for post or rank. His ire was aroused, however, when his achievement at Nashville was questioned.

Thomas died at his post at the Presidio in San Francisco on March 28, 1870 while serving as commander of the Division of the Pacific. In 1879, his comrades in the Society of the Army of the Cumberland unveiled a magnificent bronze statue of Thomas in Washington, DC. He is mounted on his horse, sitting ramrod straight, hat off, surveying the country he did so much to save.

______________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.
From Western Deserts to Carolina Swamps:
A Civil War Soldier's Journals and Letters Home

Edited by John P. Wilson
University of New Mexico Press, 2012, 296 pp., $40


Reviewed by Gordon Berg

John P. Wilson's skills as an archeologist served him well during a 25-year odyssey to uncover fragments of journals and letters written by Lewis Roe, a veteran of the antebellum army in the desert southwest and part of the 50th Illinois Volunteer Infantry as it marched with Sherman through Georgia and the Carolinas.

The search for Lewis Roe actually began when Wilson was a child in Knoxville, Ill. The town librarian was Roe's daughter.  She showed him some letters written by her father while in the field with the Army of the Tennessee.  Wilson was hooked and, over the years, he gathered other fragments of Roe's writings and discovered more details of his life.  

Wilson uncovered six fragments with which to work.  A small notebook describing Roe's  service in the southwest between June 1860-June 1861 with the 7thU.S. Infantry; original installments of a daily war journal Roe kept between October 1864 and March 1865; nine 1864-65 letters addressed to his wife; two post-war notebooks reviewing his regular army life and transcribing installments of his war journal; and a 1910 National Tribune article, a rare first-hand description of the battle of Valverde, NM on Feb. 21, 1862.  “We went into battle that morning Sixty men strong,” Roe recalled.  “We came out only 14 able to march.  21 were shot dead, the remainder wounded, but one man in our Co. escaped without a bullet mark.  I rec a slight wound in my let.  My coat was shot through the breast; it was a close call.”

To create a coherent story, Wilson had a lot of gaps to fill-in.  His search for sources and  corroborating evidence along with correcting misstatements and faulty memory could serve as a primer for dissertation writing graduate students.  During the background research for the chapter on the Atlanta campaign, in which Roe served with the 50th Illinois infantry, Wilson discovered “that Lewis Roe's journal entry for May 15 gave details about the Battle of Lay's Ferry that went beyond anything included in the primary sources...”  

Roe also participated in the occupation of Rome, GA, the battle of Allatoona, and marched to the sea with Sherman's bummers.  Roe's journal entry from Savannah on Christmas Day 1864  lamented “No pies or Chicken-fixins for dinner but only a little mush & sugar.  Our rations are not very regular yet.”  

Roe's regiment marched through Columbia, SC on Feb. 17, 1865.  In his journal, Roe described it as “a nice, pretty place.”  But he also confirmed that “The town is on fire & I am afraid it will all burn down.  The boys can hardly be controlled.”  Wilson discovered that Roe often did what many veterans did; projected themselves into events “giving the reader or listener the impression that the narrator took part in the event” when they  were only repeating what they had been told.

After the war, Roe's regiment participated in the Grand Review in Washington, DC, and was sent to Louisville, KY to await mustering out.  In a June 20, 1865 letter to has wife, Roe expressed his opinion of his commander.  “I do not know what may be thought of Sherman at the north, but no General that ever lived was ever thought more of than Billy Sherman is by this Army.”

By organizing Roe's writings and adding his own thoroughly researched commentary,  Wilson brings to light an infantry man's perspective, producing a valuable document and a lively read.

______________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.

Hood's Texas Brigade in the Civil War

By Edward B. Williams
McFarland, 2012, 350 pp., $45.00

Reviewed by Gordon Berg

The last men in the ragged gray line to emerge from the chilly morning mists and stack arms one last time were from Texas.  They were all that was left of the once proud Texas Brigade of the Army of Northern Virginia, men whom Robert E. Lee said he had come to rely on “in all tight places.”  Made up of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Texas Infantry and augmented first by the 18th Georgia and later by the 3rd Arkansas, they fought in every major engagement in the east from The Peninsula to Petersburg, missing only Chancellorsville.  They also went west with James Longstreet's Corps and fought at Chickamauga and Knoxville.  Now, only 617 were left to surrender on April 12, 1865.

Edward B. Williams, an independent military historian, has chronicled the exploits of this valiant fighting unit from its formation to its surrender and beyond in almost mind-numbing detail.  Indeed, information about the brigade abounds, primarily manuscripts, diaries, personal papers, and letters collected at Hill College's Confederate Research Center in Hillsboro, TX and Williams seems to have read them all. 

While the monograph is clearly a labor of love, writing in the active voice and some judicious editing of anecdotes and quotations would have made the narrative flow more harmoniously.  The book could easily have done without some of the author's breathless hyperbole, too; i.e. “At least they were on their way somewhere even though they all know that that somewhere might mark the site of their extinction.”  Please!

But for those interested in detailed descriptions of the battles and camp life of this renowned   Civil War unit, this book can be a worthy companion to the four volumes Colonel Harold Simpson wrote more than a quarter century ago.  By taking a chronologically approach, Williams allows the reader to reference specific chapters in order to examine events in the brigade's history.  

Even though the brigade had eight different commanders, it came to be known by it's most colorful leader, John Bell Hood.  He led the unit in its first significant action at Gaines' Mill on June 27, 1862.  In crediting the 4th Texas with breaking the Union line, General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson concluded “The men who carried this position were soldiers, indeed.”  The Brigade suffered 611 casualties at Gaines' Mill.

But the bloodletting on The Peninsula was only a preview of what was to come.  The 5th Texas alone lost 214 men at Second Manassas, earning it the sobriquet “The Bloody 5th.”  The Brigade fought in Miller's corn field at Antietam where, Williams relates, “the 1st Texas suffered the most horrendous losses of all in the Army of Northern Virginia...”  By the time the unit reached The Wilderness in May 1864, it was down to about 800 effectives.  Less than half emerged from from that blood drenched tangle of underbrush to man the Richmond/Petersburg defense lines until the last days of the war. 

The chapter describing the Texan's homeward trek after the surrender is one of Williams' best.  The Hood's Texas Brigade Association was formed in 1872 and met  “with great fanfare” almost every year until 1933.   Since 1966, the memory of the Texas Brigade has been carried forward by the biennial meetings of Hood's Texas Brigade Association, Reorganized.

______________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.
War Upon the Land:
Military Strategy and the Transformation
of Southern Landscapes During
the American Civil War

By Lisa M. Brady
University of Georgia Press, 2012, 188 pp., $24.95 (paper)

Reviewed by Gordon Berg

A postwar observer of the desolate South after the Civil War commented on the condition of the land over which General William T. Sherman's army had traveled.  “Truly might it have been said,” wrote Englishman John A. Kennaway, using the Bible as his text, “'The land is as the garden of Eden before him, and behind him a desolate wilderness.'  The spirit of the South fairly broke down under the infliction, and her soldiers in many cases refused any longer to fight for a Government which had proved itself powerless to protect their families and their homes.”

Lisa Brady examines four important Union campaigns from Kennaway's point of view.  She argues, eloquently and persuasively, that the ecology of the Southern landscape and the way 19th century Americans interacted with it, were crucial to the military successes achieved by the Federal armies along the lower Mississippi River, at Vicksburg, in the Shenandoah Valley, and through Georgia and the Carolinas. 

Dr. Brady creatively combines the disciplines of archeology, environmental studies, sociology, and military history to show how the strategies and tactics of Generals Grant, Sheridan, and Sherman made war not only on Confederate soldiers and civilians, but on the very land itself.  “Union forces,” she argues, “attacked the Confederacy's resources, its physical and imagined landscapes, and its relationship with nature.”

The bottom lands bordering the lower Mississippi River often proved to be a greater obstacle to the invading Union armies than the Rebel soldiers defending it.  Indeed, General Grant's initial failures to capture Vicksburg were in large measure due to unfriendly natural environments and diseases which they spawned.  These failures, Dr. Brady concludes,  “led him to more innovative tactics that targeted not just the military defenses around the city, but also the city's supporting landscape.”   It was a tactic the southern population would, to their dismay, come to know very well. 

A noted historian of the campaigns waged in the Shenandoah Valley has written that it was “the lynchpin of the Southern Cause and a primary target of the Northern war machine.”  In 1864, Grant ordered Sheridan to bring “hard war” tactics to Virginia's verdant fields.  Sheridan, according to Dr. Brady, waged a war “against the Valley, one that attacked the agricultural and industrial improvements that previously had sustained its citizens and supplied the Confederate army.”  Dr. Brady interprets that Sheridan's orders “were to destroy the means by which Shenandoah Valley residents managed the natural environment, transforming it from a civilized, improved landscape into a virtual wilderness.”

Dr. Brady's pioneering work shows that many new insights into the Civil War can be gained by employing a combination of new disciplines to examine long accepted facts.  The trail she and other young historians are blazing should be followed by many others.

______________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.
To the Battles of 
Franklin and Nashville and Beyond: 
Stabilization and Reconstruction
in Tennessee and Kentucky, 1864-1866

Benjamin Franklin Cooling
University of Tennessee Press, 2011, 526 pp., $45.95


Review by Gordon Berg

After the war, Tennessee cavalryman Thomas Black Wilson declared, “I look on Fort Donelson as one of the most important battles of the war.”  Benjamin Franklin Cooling has spent much of his career corroborating the prescience of Black’s observation about this Union victory in early 1862 and the war in the Western theater that followed. 

This triumphal volume concludes Dr. Cooling’s definitive trilogy detailing the war in Kentucky and Tennessee.  He deftly combines the insights of an historian with the expertise of a national security analyst to vividly portray how the Confederacy’s hope for nationhood became shipwrecked in the rugged hills and rolling heartland of the upper South.

Assessing the military situation after Ulysses S. Grant’s decisive victory over Braxton Bragg at Chattanooga in November 1863, Dr. Cooling eloquently concludes that “dreams of ’going back to Tennessee’ dissipated in the winter snows of north Georgia and became moot when spring blossoms presaged renewed Federal movements southward on the rail line to Atlanta as well as in Virginia.”   Overly optimistic rebel strategists lacked the men and material to throw the Federal juggernaut off balance and, Dr. Cooling concludes, “the Confederate moment had passed by May.”

But, 16 months of hard fighting for the soldiers and severe economic deprivation for the civilians still lay ahead.  Dr. Cooling punctuates his monograph with poignant anecdotes revealing the how the divided loyalties among the citizens of the two states made for tense and unsettled conditions behind the lines and President Lincoln‘s hopes of reintegrating areas occupied by Northern armies back into the Union an illusive chimera.  He quotes the editor of Union-appointed Tennessee governor Andrew Johnson‘s papers, Leroy Graf, as observing “until the disorders and insecurities created by roving bands of Confederates were quelled, the prospects for successful civil government were dim.”

Dr. Cooling also distinguishes himself as a master of battle narrative.  His descriptions of the fighting at Spring Hill, Franklin, and Nashville are spirited and analytically insightful.  This book is a must read for anyone wishing to understand why the Civil War really was won in the West.
____________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.
John Brown’s Body
Stephen Vincent Benet and Civil War Memory

Review by Gordon Berg

Throughout history, societies have produced literary works like The Iliad or The Aenied that define a nation’s character and its people.  In 1928, Stephen Vincent Benet published John Brown’s Body, 15,000 lines of blank verse exulting the spirit of the American people as seen through the prism of its defining historical moment, the Civil War.  Like Homer and Virgil before him, Benet used poetry to give moral significance to a time of seminal change and profound tragedy.

An accomplished writer since his collegiate days at Yale, Benet won a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1926, the first ever awarded for poetry.  He composed John Brown’s Body, his best known work, over two years while living in Paris because his funds would last longer there and, he said, “living abroad intensified my Americanism.“  Benet was an unabashed liberal.  He understood the Civil War as the pivotal event in the evolution of the United States into a democratic, progressive, and pluralistic society.  He made sense of the war’s horrific loss of life much as Abraham Lincoln did; as a necessary, divinely ordained, shedding of blood before the nation could be redeemed from the sin of slavery.

The 1920’s were a critical period in the creation of Civil War memory and many Americans did not share Benet‘s progressive views.  For aging white veterans, blue and gray, it was their last hurrah; a chance to cement their vision of  battlefield sacrifice into the public’s mind and give meaning to the deaths of thousands of their comrades.  Reconciliation between old foes and honor to all old soldiers was the order of the day. 

For African Americans, the war’s living legacy, it was a much different time.  They found themselves emancipated but far from free.  For them, the roaring 20’s was an era of  virulent racism, social segregation, political disenfranchisement, and sudden violence.  Jim Crow Laws, Black Codes, a resurgent Ku Klux Klan, and the public lynching of blacks all across America seemed to mock Lincoln’s vision of a more perfect Union.

Benet chose to mix historical personages with fictional characters from all walks of society to create his vision of a balanced, optimistic, and reconciliationist national saga about the war and the effect it had on the people who lived through it.  Like Walt Whitman, his model, Benet, too, heard America singing and attempted to capture its disparate melodies in verse.

Although John Brown himself is hung barely a third of the way through the book,  he is the poem’s guiding spirit, hovering over the entire work like an apocalyptic flame right out of the Old Testament who loosed a flood of fateful events that would change every aspect of American life. 
Benet depicts Brown as being outside of history, a Hegelian world historical figure who can “change the actual scheme of things” and, by the power of his personality, bring about a new historical dispensation:

               Sometimes there comes a crack in Time itself.
               Sometimes the earth is torn by something blind.
               Sometimes an image that has stood so long
               It seems implanted as the polar star
               Is moved against an unfathomed force
               That suddenly will not have it any more.

 Even though he failed in many of his business endeavors and “had no gift for life,” Benet understood that Brown changed history because “he knew how to die.”  As evidence, the poet reproduces the vibrant language Brown used in his final speech to the court, including:

               Now if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my
               life for the furtherance of the ends of justice and mingle
               my blood further with the blood of my children
               and with the blood of millions in this slave country
               whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and
               unjust enactments, I say, let it be done.

Brown’s  powerful words were soon memorized and whispered in countless slave quarters throughout the South.  They were reproduced in newspapers throughout the North and evangelical clergymen read them from hundreds of pulpits.  To millions of enslaved black people and many whites, John Brown’s body, hung on a gallows at Charlestown, VA on Oct. 16, 1859, symbolically had become the crucified Christ.  But to southern slave owners, his spectral figure was repeatedly likened to the Arch Fiend himself.

Benet, himself, had a love-hate relationship with Brown.  “You did not fight for the Union nor wish it well,” he wrote.  “You fought for the single dream of a man unchained.”  For an avowed progressive nationalist like Benet, the war could not be justified merely because it freed the slaves.  A new, more perfect, nation had to arise from the carnage of the conflict; a political consequence that Brown never envisioned. 

The other Christ figure in the saga is, of course, Lincoln.  After the fiasco at First Manassas in July 1861, Benet describes him as “awkwardly enduring…neither overwhelmed nor touched to folly.”  Lincoln must now begin the laborious job of “kneading the stuff of the Union together again.”  His work is likened to a divine mission.  “And yet Lincoln had a star, if you would have it so,” Benet writes, obviously alluding to the polar star that led the Three Wise Men to Jesus‘ manger, “and he was haunted by a prairie-star,” possibly referring to Lincoln’s Midwest heritage or to John Brown’s Kansas abolitionist activities.        

Critics have debated the book’s literary merits ever since it won the Pulitzer Prize in 1929.  Some consider Benet’s portrayal of historical personages like Lincoln, Lee, Grant, Beauregard, Judah Benjamin, Jefferson Davis, and others to be flat and uninspiring.   His portrait of Robert E. Lee, however, captures the essence of the South’s “marble man” in a few poignant lines:

                A figure lost to flesh and blood and bones,
                Frozen into a legend out of life,
                A blank-verse statue…
                For here was someone who lived all his life
                In the most fierce and open light of the sun…
                And kept his heart a secret to the end

Benet is also adept at taking historical situations and vividly rendering them into emotional literary images.  He portrays Edmund Ruffin, the rabid abolitionist who fired the first cannon at Fort Sumter, walking in his Richmond garden with a Confederate flag around his shoulders, shoot himself in the heart upon learning of Lee’s surrender.  Benet describes General Grant when he sees Confederate bonfires celebrating the birth of George Pickett’s son.  He orders his soldiers to do the same and sends a silver service for the baby.  Just days later, Grant attacks Pickett and the Confederate army at Petersburg.
   
Other critics consider his fictional characters, representing Northern and Southern archetypes, to be more fully developed.  Jack Ellyat, the hardy New England abolitionist is balanced against Clay Wingate, the haunted plantation owner.  Jake Diefer, the Pennsylvania yeoman and Luke Breckinridge, the illiterate backwoods hunter; Sally Dupre, the Southern belle and Melora Vilas, a subsistence farmer’s daughter; Cudjo, the loyal house servant and Spade, the slave who escapes to freedom all characterize traits of the common people Benet so admires, people who suffered, fought, and died to bring about a new birth of American freedom.  Benet treats them all with honor and respects the choices they made.

Benet always insisted that he was writing poetry, not history.  But in the preface to John Brown’s Body, he defended the historical accuracy of his work.  “In dealing with known events,” he wrote, “I have tried to cleave to historical fact where such fact is ascertainable.”   For the thoughts and feelings of the historical characters, however, “I alone must be held responsible.” 

John Brown’s Body does on a grand scale what Stephen Crane’s novel, Red Badge of Courage, does on an individual level.  Both writers use fictional characters to put immediacy, feeling, and emotion into history.  They adhere to Aristotle’s maxim that poetry can reveal universal truths while history is confined to particular truths.  By following this methodology, both writers give immediacy and a personal focus to the events they recreate.   

That’s not to say a poet can’t be a good historian, too.  Benet remembered stories told to him by his father and grandfather, both graduates of West Point and career military officers.  He devoured the Official Record, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, and read countless collections of letters, diaries, and memoirs.  His set-piece descriptions of battles like the First Manassas, Shiloh, Fredericksburg, and Gettysburg are lyrically rendered and historically accurate. 

No less a historian than Bruce Catton, the author of an award-winning trilogy that recounted the war from the perspective of the Army of the Potomac, admired the book both for its poetry and its history.  He found it “pulsing with emotion and glowing with the light that comes when a poet’s insight touches a moment of inexplicable tragedy.“  Catton understood that “it is the poet we have to turn to when we confront the profound impact of tragedy on the human spirit.” 

Douglas Southall Freeman was researching his four-volume biography of Robert E. Lee when Benet’s masterpiece appeared.  He was curious to see how closely Benet’s appraisals and conclusions corresponded to his own.  Freeman concluded that Benet “was as accurate in his history as he was skillful in his art.”  

Very popular when it was published, John Brown’s Body is rarely read today.  Nevertheless, it remains a vibrant tapestry of America’s diversity and its unity by reimagining the war as Lincoln understood it -- a new birth of freedom, a nation redeemed, and a people re-unified.

______________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.